Education, Faculty of
Education, School of (Okanagan)
DSpace
UBCO
Law, Ho Chung
Master of Arts - MA
University of British Columbia
Many believe that computational thinking (CT) is a problem-solving skill that everyone should learn. In K-12 education, there is an increasing interest in teaching CT through physical computing, which involves the use of programmable devices to create useful interactive artifacts, like robots. Research has found that physical computing can support CT education, however, little research is aimed at understanding prospective educators’ viewpoints about CT based on their lived experiences with physical computing. To fill this research gap, a qualitative and exploratory case study was conducted using a physical computing device called a Micro:bit. The term "prospective educator" was defined inclusively in this research to sample university students in any discipline who could offer their pedagogical insights. This approach recognized the diverse range of individuals who can contribute to CT, physical computing, and maker-centered education beyond schoolteachers. Six participants with different academic backgrounds were recruited from a university in Western Canada. Each participant was given a Micro:bit maker kit and one month to work on a sustainable development project at home. Participants were supported remotely through a learning blog and video conferencing software. Data about participants’ viewpoints and experiences were collected online from surveys, workshops, support sessions, individual interviews, and participants’ blog posts. A thematic analysis was conducted to understand what participants think CT means, how to teach CT with Micro:bits, and the participants’ overall learning experiences. Participants’ viewpoints about CT were summarized into an operational definition of CT comprising five criteria for observing CT in daily life. Three cognitive and three affective strategies of teaching CT through physical computing were also identified. Participants’ lived experiences showed that physical computing can provide learners with a sense of empowerment, and facilitate learners’ intellectual and emotional development. These findings conform to the theoretical constructs of critical pedagogy and constructionism. Three major challenges that limited participants’ collaboration, engagement, and communication in remote learning were also found. The findings suggest that future research can focus more on the emotional development aspects of CT to nurture learners’ creativity, empathy, and critical thinking skills to solve real-world issues using CT and physical computing.
From Computational Thinking to Thoughtful Computing: Perspectives on Physical Computing in Maker-Centered Education by Ho Chung Law B.Soc.Sc., Hong Kong Baptist University, 2001 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE COLLEGE OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Education) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Okanagan) March 2023 © Ho Chung Law, 2023 ii The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the College of Graduate Studies for acceptance, a thesis entitled: From Computational Thinking to Thoughtful Computing: Perspectives on Physical Computing in Maker-Centered Education submitted by Ho Chung Law in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Arts. Dr. Robert Campbell, Okanagan School of Education Supervisor Dr. Catherine Broom, Okanagan School of Education Supervisory Committee Member Dr. Peter Arthur, Okanagan School of Education Supervisory Committee Member Dr. Abdallah Mohamed, Irving K. Barber Faculty of Science University Examiner iii Abstract Many believe that computational thinking (CT) is a problem-solving skill that everyone should learn. In K-12 education, there is an increasing interest in teaching CT through physical computing, which involves the use of programmable devices to create useful interactive artifacts, like robots. Research has found that physical computing can support CT education, however, little research is aimed at understanding prospective educators’ viewpoints about CT based on their lived experiences with physical computing. To fill this research gap, a qualitative and exploratory case study was conducted using a physical computing device called a Micro:bit. The term "prospective educator" was defined inclusively in this research to sample university students in any discipline who could offer their pedagogical insights. This approach recognized the diverse range of individuals who can contribute to CT, physical computing, and maker-centered education beyond schoolteachers. Six participants with different academic backgrounds were recruited from a university in Western Canada. Each participant was given a Micro:bit maker kit and one month to work on a sustainable development project at home. Participants were supported remotely through a learning blog and video conferencing software. Data about participants’ viewpoints and experiences were collected online from surveys, workshops, support sessions, individual interviews, and participants’ blog posts. A thematic analysis was conducted to understand what participants think CT means, how to teach CT with Micro:bits, and the participants’ overall learning experiences. Participants’ viewpoints about CT were summarized into an operational definition of CT comprising five criteria for observing CT in daily life. Three cognitive and three affective strategies of teaching CT through physical computing were also identified. Participants’ lived experiences showed that physical computing can provide learners with a sense of empowerment, and facilitate learners’ intellectual and emotional development. iv These findings conform to the theoretical constructs of critical pedagogy and constructionism. Three major challenges that limited participants’ collaboration, engagement, and communication in remote learning were also found. The findings suggest that future research can focus more on the emotional development aspects of CT to nurture learners’ creativity, empathy, and critical thinking skills to solve real-world issues using CT and physical computing. v Lay Summary Many believe that computational thinking (CT) is a problem-solving skill that everyone should learn. This study explores prospective educators' viewpoints about teaching CT through physical computing, which involves using programmable devices to create objects like robots. Six participants from a university in Western Canada were given a maker kit and one month to work on a creative project at home. Their work was remotely supported online by the researcher. Data about participants’ viewpoints and experiences were collected online from surveys, workshops, support sessions, individual interviews, and participants’ blog posts. This study found five criteria to identify CT in daily life, six strategies of teaching CT through physical computing, and three challenges of learning physical computing remotely. The findings suggest that future research should focus more on the emotional development aspects of CT to nurture learners’ creativity, empathy, and critical thinking skills to solve real-world issues using CT and physical computing. vi Preface This thesis is an original intellectual product of the author, Ho Chung Law. The identification of the research problem, the research design, and all the research procedures were conducted by Ho Chung Law under the supervision from the Principal Investigator, Dr. Robert Campbell, and the Supervisory Committee. The Supervisory Committee included the following members: • Dr. Robert Campbell Graduate Supervisor and Principal Investigator Associate Professor Okanagan School of Education • Dr. Catherine Broom Associate Professor Okanagan School of Education • Dr. Peter Arthur Professor of Teaching Okanagan School of Education The University of British Columbia’s Okanagan Campus Behavioural Research Ethics Board (BREB) granted ethical approval for this research on May 17th, 2022 (BREB Certificate Number: H22-00419). As of the date of this submission, the results of this thesis have not been published. vii Table of Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... iii Lay Summary ................................................................................................................................ v Preface ........................................................................................................................................... vi Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................ vii List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ xi List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. xii Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... xiii Dedication ................................................................................................................................... xiv Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Chapter Overview ................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Research Background ............................................................................................................ 1 1.3 Researcher’s Background ...................................................................................................... 3 1.4 Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................................. 4 1.5 Research Questions ............................................................................................................... 4 1.6 Theoretical Framework ......................................................................................................... 5 1.7 Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 6 1.8 Significance of the Study ...................................................................................................... 6 1.9 Limitations and Delimitations ............................................................................................... 7 1.10 Organization of the Thesis .................................................................................................. 8 1.11 Chapter Summary ................................................................................................................ 9 Chapter 2: Literature Review .................................................................................................... 10 2.1 Chapter Overview ............................................................................................................... 10 2.2 The Propositions and Pedagogies of Computational Thinking ........................................... 10 2.2.1 Comparison - Critical Thinking and Computational Thinking .................................... 11 2.2.2 The Responses to Computer Literacy ........................................................................... 14 2.2.3 Computational Thinking – From Wing to Papert ......................................................... 16 2.2.4 Computational Thinking and Beyond .......................................................................... 19 2.3 The Theories of Maker-Centered Education ....................................................................... 20 2.4 The Pedagogical Role of Physical Computing .................................................................... 23 2.5 The Voices of Prospective Educators .................................................................................. 26 2.6 Chapter Summary ................................................................................................................ 28 Chapter 3: Research Methods ................................................................................................... 31 3.1 Chapter Overview ............................................................................................................... 31 3.2 Research Purposes ............................................................................................................... 31 viii 3.3 Research Questions ............................................................................................................. 31 3.4 Research Philosophy and Methodology .............................................................................. 32 3.4.1 Researcher Positionality ............................................................................................... 32 3.4.2 Qualitative Methodology .............................................................................................. 33 3.4.3 Exploratory Case Study ................................................................................................ 34 3.5 Research Design .................................................................................................................. 35 3.5.1 Defining a Case ............................................................................................................ 36 3.5.2 Maker Activity.............................................................................................................. 37 3.5.3 Maker Kit and Craft Materials ..................................................................................... 37 3.5.4 Web Applications for the Internet of Things ................................................................ 38 3.5.5 Remote Learning Resources ......................................................................................... 39 3.5.6 Data Collection Instruments ......................................................................................... 40 3.6 Case Selection and Sampling .............................................................................................. 41 3.7 Data Collection Procedures ................................................................................................. 43 3.7.1 COVID-19 Protocols .................................................................................................... 43 3.7.2 Participant Recruitment and Initial Survey .................................................................. 43 3.7.3 Briefing and Material Distribution ............................................................................... 43 3.7.4 The Learning Blog ........................................................................................................ 44 3.7.5 Zoom Workshops and Support ..................................................................................... 44 3.7.6 Zoom Interview and Final Survey ................................................................................ 44 3.7.7 Material Return and Token of Appreciation ................................................................ 45 3.7.8 Other Procedures and Data Storage .............................................................................. 45 3.8 Data Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 45 3.8.1 Reflexive Thematic Analysis ....................................................................................... 46 3.8.2 Data Processing Procedures ......................................................................................... 48 3.8.3 Coding Data and Creating Themes ............................................................................... 48 3.9 Trustworthiness and Reflexivity ......................................................................................... 49 3.10 Limitations and Delimitations ........................................................................................... 53 3.11 Chapter Summary .............................................................................................................. 54 Chapter 4: Findings .................................................................................................................... 55 4.1 Chapter Overview ............................................................................................................... 55 4.2 Research Question Q1 ......................................................................................................... 56 4.2.1 CT is Everywhere but Hidden in Daily Life ................................................................ 57 4.2.2 CT is the Logical and Systematic Process Used to Solve Problems ............................ 58 4.2.3 CT Can Put Computational Resources in Action ......................................................... 59 4.2.4 Summary of the Findings for the First Research Question .......................................... 59 4.3 Research Question Q2 ......................................................................................................... 60 4.3.1 The Cognitive Pathways that Nurture Logical Thinkers .............................................. 61 4.3.1.1 Apply Mathematics to Create Logical Systems. .................................................... 62 4.3.1.2 Design Precise Automations to Shape the World. ................................................. 63 ix 4.3.1.3 Create Impartial Machines to Complement Human Weaknesses. ......................... 64 4.3.2 The Affective Pathways that Nurture Creative Problem Solvers ................................. 65 4.3.2.1 Enjoy Problem-Solving with All Your Heart. ....................................................... 66 4.3.2.2 Become Creative Producers. .................................................................................. 67 4.3.2.3 Share the Joy of Computing with Others. .............................................................. 69 4.3.3 Summary of the Findings for the Second Research Question ...................................... 70 4.4 Research Question Q3 ......................................................................................................... 70 4.4.1 Imagine with Computing Tools .................................................................................... 72 4.4.2 Empathize by Making................................................................................................... 73 4.4.3 Persevere by Tinkering. ................................................................................................ 74 4.4.3.1 Play with the Unknown. ......................................................................................... 76 4.4.3.2 Sense the Imperceptible. ........................................................................................ 76 4.4.3.3 Improvise with a Vision. ........................................................................................ 77 4.4.4 Intangible Barriers ........................................................................................................ 79 4.4.4.1 Superficial Social Experience. ............................................................................... 79 4.4.4.2 Agency Overload. .................................................................................................. 80 4.4.4.3 Communication Breakdown. ................................................................................. 81 4.4.5 Summary of the Findings for the Third Research Question ......................................... 83 4.5 Chapter Summary ................................................................................................................ 83 Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion ..................................................................................... 84 5.1 Chapter Overview ............................................................................................................... 84 5.2 Research Question Q1 ......................................................................................................... 85 5.2.1 The Operational Definition of CT ................................................................................ 85 5.2.2 CT Can Form Problem-Solving Ideas .......................................................................... 86 5.2.3 CT is Practical .............................................................................................................. 86 5.2.4 CT is Logical ................................................................................................................ 86 5.2.5 CT is Systematic ........................................................................................................... 87 5.2.6 CT is Embeddable in Computing Artifacts .................................................................. 87 5.2.7 Other Discussion Pertaining to Q1 ............................................................................... 87 5.3 Research Question Q2 ......................................................................................................... 89 5.3.1 The Cognitive Pathways ............................................................................................... 89 5.3.2 The Affective Pathways ............................................................................................... 90 5.3.3 Other Discussion Pertaining to Q2 ............................................................................... 92 5.4 Research Question Q3 ......................................................................................................... 93 5.4.1 The Maker-Centered Learning Experiences with Micro:bits ....................................... 94 5.4.2 The Remote Learning Experiences with Micro:bits ..................................................... 95 5.4.3 Other Discussion Pertaining to Q3 ............................................................................... 97 5.5 Implications ......................................................................................................................... 98 5.6 Recommendations for Future Research ............................................................................ 101 5.7 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 102 x References .................................................................................................................................. 104 Appendix A Micro:bit Maker Kit .............................................................................................. 123 Appendix B Craft Materials ....................................................................................................... 124 Appendix C IoT Web Applications ........................................................................................... 126 Appendix D Content in the Online Learning Blog .................................................................... 128 Appendix E Initial Online Survey ............................................................................................. 133 Appendix F Semi-Structured Interview ..................................................................................... 134 Appendix G Final Online Survey .............................................................................................. 136 Appendix H Recruitment Materials ........................................................................................... 137 Appendix I Project Examples Created by the Researcher ......................................................... 140 Appendix J Participants’ Blog Posts and Projects ..................................................................... 142 Appendix K Zoom Workshops and Support Sessions ............................................................... 148 Appendix L Transcription Guidelines ....................................................................................... 149 xi List of Tables Table 1 Summary of Research Questions ................................................................................... 32 Table 2 Overview of the Cases .................................................................................................... 42 Table 3 Six Phases of Reflexive Thematic Analysis ................................................................... 47 Table 4 Overview of the Themes ................................................................................................. 55 Table 5 Overview of the Subthemes ............................................................................................ 56 Table 6 Research Question Q1 - Themes and Subthemes ......................................................... 56 Table 7 Research Question Q2 - Themes and Subthemes ......................................................... 60 Table 8 Research Question Q3 - Themes and Subthemes ......................................................... 71 Table 9 Literature Linked to the Findings ................................................................................. 84 xii List of Figures Figure 1 QR Code Stickers .......................................................................................................... 38 Figure 2 Five Criteria in the Operational Definition of CT ......................................................... 99 Figure 3 The Pathways and Processes of Learning CT with Micro:bits .................................... 100 xiii Acknowledgements I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Robert Campbell. Your guidance, insights, and encouragement helped me overcome so many challenges in this journey. Thank you so much for your tireless and professional mentoring that made me become a better and more confident writer. I am also grateful to my supervisory committee, Dr. Catherine Broom and Dr. Peter Arthur. Thank you so much for your feedback and support. I would also like to thank my parents and sisters. I could never complete this journey without your support. To my wife and daughter, thank you for giving me the courage to start this journey. xiv Dedication This thesis is dedicated to my wife and daughter, who teach me to be a better person, and inspire me to be a better educator. 1 Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1 Chapter Overview In this chapter, I will first explain the research context, including some key information about computational thinking (CT), physical computing, maker education, and what inspired me to conduct this inquiry. Then, I will introduce the purpose of the research, the research questions, and a description of the research design. Finally, I will summarize the research significance, explain the research’s major limitation and delimitation, describe the organization of this thesis, and provide a brief chapter summary. 1.2 Research Background My research was about CT, a prominent and influential research topic in computer science education since 2006 (Kafai et al., 2020; Wing, 2017). This research was inspired by the work of Seymour Papert. In 1980, Papert envisioned a future in which children could code and integrate computer technology into their daily lives. I was also inspired by the Micro:bit initiative undertaken by the Coquitlam School District (2018) in British Columbia (BC), Canada. In the following, I will explain the research context and further discuss the inspiration for this research. In 2006, Jeannette Wing wrote a seminal article about CT. Wing (2006) argued that CT is a universal problem-solving skill that anyone can develop by “thinking like a computer scientist” (p. 34). Wing’s article has been widely acknowledged as the starting point of the CT education movement (diSessa, 2018; Lodi & Martini, 2021; Tedre & Denning, 2016). For example, the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) has included guidelines in the ISTE Standards for educators to integrate CT in their curriculum (ISTE, n.d.). Furthermore, CT is 2 becoming more important in education in many countries, such as Australia, China, Japan, Korea, Denmark, the United Kingdom, and the United States (Wing, 2017). In Canada, many provinces incorporate CT in the K-12 curriculum as a means to teach computer science concepts (Gannon & Buteau, 2018). However, Wing’s article has also led to diverse discourse (Denning, 2017; Easterbrook, 2014; Grover & Pea, 2013; Guzdial, 2008; Kafai et al., 2020; Li et al., 2020). For example, Denning (2017) rejected Wing’s unproved assertion that CT is a universal problem-solving skill. Li et al. (2020) stressed that “everyone does not need to think like a computer scientist” (p. 9). Also, Tedre and Denning (2016) pointed out that CT is not a new concept, and credited the origin of the term, computational thinking, to Seymour Papert. Papert pioneered the idea that physical computing can be done by children (Blikstein, 2013). Physical computing involves software and hardware that creates tangible and interactive artifacts (Blikstein, 2013; Govender & Govender, 2021; Przybylla & Romeike, 2014; Sentance et al., 2017). Papert (1980) co-invented a kid-friendly programming language called Logo, and a robotic turtle that could be programmed with Logo to move the turtle around and draw on a surface. In his book Mindstorms, Papert (1980) envisioned that one day, with the advent of “computational technology and computational ideas” (p. 17), even young children can “integrate computational thinking into everyday life” (p. 182). Indeed, physical computing technology is becoming more robust, accessible, and affordable (Blikstein, 2013). For example, in 2016 the BBC launched a microcontroller, Micro:bit, and distributed a million free Micro:bits to students aged 11-12 in the United Kingdom (Sentance et al., 2017). After that, more Micro:bits have been distributed worldwide as a low-cost physical computing device, reaching 25 million learners in over 60 countries (Micro:bit Educational Foundation, n.d.-c; Sentance et al., 2017). 3 As a result of these initiatives and implementations of Micro:bits, more educators have become interested in using Micro:bits to teach CT. For instance, BC has a curriculum called Applied Design, Skills, and Technologies (ADST), which emphasizes “design thinking and making” (Province of British Columbia, n.d., para. 11). In 2016, a new CT module was added in the ADST curriculum (Gannon & Buteau, 2018). In response to the change, the BC Coquitlam School District provided each primary and middle school with a free Micro:bit classroom kit, and offered each school a compulsory training session which focused on integrating Micro:bits into CT education (Coquitlam School District, 2018). Papert’s (1980) vision, a future in which even young children can integrate CT in their daily lives, is supported in the Coquitlam School District’s (2018) initiative as follows: An important part of our approach to computational thinking and coding involves challenging students to make sense of everyday things in our lives … We believe micro:bit provides the opportunity to replicate these things and, with a little student ingenuity, maybe even make them better (p. 3). My research was inspired by Papert’s vision and the Coquitlam School District’s initiative. I was interested in understanding how learners can develop and integrate CT in their daily lives with the use of Micro:bits, and what can be done to support educators who wish to teach CT through physical computing. 1.3 Researcher’s Background I was born in Hong Kong, where I was immersed in both Chinese and western cultures for over 40 years. After I graduated with a bachelor’s degree in digital graphic communication, I worked in various creative industries such as advertising, animation production, and mobile 4 game publishing. Before I decided to pursue my master’s degree, I worked in a private learning center as a makerspace instructor, teaching young children simple robotics. The first thing that I made in the makerspace was a special glove to impress my students. The glove could count how many times I high-fived with them. I used a Micro:bit to program the counter, and sewed the Micro:bit onto the glove. I enjoyed working as a makerspace instructor because I could explore the creative uses of technology alongside my students. I also felt so satisfied when I supported my students in turning their ideas into reality. However, in 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic had a huge negative impact on my career. To my disappointment, the makerspace was shut down. However, it had truly captured my interest as an educator. As I reflected on my experiences as a makerspace instructor, I became more curious about maker education and how, in a COVID-19 scenario, educators could remotely support maker activities like physical computing. 1.4 Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to address two research gaps. First, little research is aimed at understanding prospective educators’ viewpoints about CT based on their maker-centered experiences with physical computing. Second, there is a dearth of research that studies how educators can support physical computing in a remote setting. A more detailed description of the research purposes will be provided in Chapter 3. 1.5 Research Questions This overarching query guided the research design: How can learners develop CT through physical computing? In this inquiry, the overarching query was examined by studying prospective educators’ 5 hands-on experiences with Micro:bits in a maker activity that I facilitated remotely. Three research questions were formulated to understand prospective educators’ viewpoints and lived experiences: Q1: What do prospective educators think CT means? Q2: What do prospective educators perceive as the strategies to teach CT with Micro:bits? Q3: What do prospective educators’ learning experiences with Micro:bits look like? Q1 and Q2 focused on exploring participants’ perceptions, including their interpretations of CT and perspectives of how learners can develop CT through physical computing. Q3 focused on contextualizing participants’ perceptions within their lived experiences, which include their maker-centered learning experiences and remote learning experiences. A definition of prospective educator is provided in Section 3.5.1. The definition recognizes the diverse range of individuals who can contribute to CT, physical computing, and maker-centered education beyond schoolteachers. 1.6 Theoretical Framework According to Clapp et al. (2016), the essential element of maker-centered pedagogy is “maker empowerment” (p. 12). Clapp et al. (2016) explained that maker empowerment can nurture learners’ intrinsic motivation to understand the world by tinkering, and empower learners to shape the world by making. Maker empowerment is rooted in “critical pedagogy” (Freire, 1974, p. 17) and “constructionism” (Papert, 1988, p. 13). Critical pedagogy allows students to be aware of their agency and power, so that they can change the world in their own ways (Freire, 1974). Constructionism posits that education should facilitate learners to construct knowledge by creating “objects-to-think-with” (Papert, 1980, p. 11). These theories informed the design of my research. I will provide a more in-depth review of these theories in Chapter 2. 6 1.7 Methodology This inquiry was a qualitative and exploratory case study. The recruitment site was a university in a Canadian province. The K-12 curriculum in this province has incorporated CT (Gannon & Buteau, 2018). Six cases were selected in the site. Each case involved a prospective educator that I sampled purposively (Merriam, 1998). A Micro:bit maker kit and a package of craft materials were given to each participant to complete a maker activity. The maker activity was a creative challenge, in which participants spent one month developing a project that related to sustainable development. I created a learning blog and facilitated the maker activity remotely. The blog contained resources for participants to learn about Micro:bits, CT, and sustainable development. The blog also provided a safe and flexible environment for participants to discuss their projects with each other. My remote support included recording and sharing video tutorials with participants, and providing participants with workshops and technical support via Zoom. I also created two web applications to support participants’ projects that required internet connectivity. Data collection instruments in this study included an initial online survey, participants’ blog posts, Zoom workshops, Zoom support sessions, Zoom interviews, and a final online survey. “Reflexive thematic analysis” (Braun & Clarke, 2019, p. 589) was used to analyze the data. Themes and subthemes were created by comparing data within a case and across all cases (Merriam, 1998). More details of my research methods can be found in Chapter 3. 1.8 Significance of the Study Compared to other research studies that I reviewed, this study has three major strengths. First, the findings of this study were grounded in prospective educators’ prolonged experiences 7 with Micro:bits. In contrast, the findings of many other research studies were grounded in intensive workshops, which provided very limited time for participants to engage with physical computing (Blackley et al., 2017; Govender & Govender, 2021; Jones et al., 2017; Korhonen et al., 2019). Second, this inquiry explored the opportunities and challenges that prospective educators face when they learn physical computing in a remote setting. Little research explored these areas. Third, the specific set of diverse data collection instruments employed in this research was not found in other CT research studies that I reviewed. 1.9 Limitations and Delimitations In this study, a major limitation was the scope of physical computing experiences that participants could engage in. This study only focused on one particular type of physical computing technology. Participants could only use the Micro:bit maker kits that I provided. In other words, participants’ experiences with Micro:bits could not represent the full spectrum of physical computing experiences. Thus, the findings of this study could only represent participants’ specific viewpoints based on the specific physical computing technology available in this research. However, the use of Micro:bits was also a major delimitation of this study. I chose Micro:bits as the physical computing tool for this research because it is an accessible device that I am familiar with. Being an easy-to-use device, Micro:bits allowed participants with no prior physical computing experience to be able to take part in this study. Thus, university students from any discipline in the recruitment site could participate in the inclusive maker activity of this research. This allowed participants from more diverse backgrounds to participate in the study, and provided me with the opportunity to gain a richer and deeper understanding of my research topic. Moreover, by using the tool that I am familiar with, I could provide better support to 8 participants, which allowed me to establish rapport with them. In Chapter 3, I will provide a more thorough discussion about the limitations and delimitations of this research, and the benefits of establishing rapport with participants in a qualitative study. 1.10 Organization of the Thesis This thesis has five chapters. In Chapter 1, I have provided an overview of the research purpose and design. In Chapter 2, I will provide a comprehensive literature review to explain the details of the research context. I will first compare and contrast CT with critical thinking. Then, I will provide the historical context of CT such as a discussion about the computer literacy movement. I will also review key literature in relation to CT, physical computing, and maker-centered education. Finally, I will justify the research gaps, and explain the theoretical framework of this study. In Chapter 3, I will describe and justify my research methods. I will first provide a reflective account of my philosophical assumptions, my preconception of CT, and the power dynamics between participants and myself. After that, I will justify why I chose a qualitative and exploratory case study as my research approach. I will also provide a comprehensive description of the maker activity, data collection instruments, data collection procedures, and how I conducted the reflexive thematic analysis recursively in multiple phases (Terry & Hayfield, 2021). Finally, I will provide an in-depth discussion of the trustworthiness, limitations, and delimitations of this research. In Chapter 4, I will present the findings. I created nine main themes and 12 subthemes to answer the research questions. I will define and explain each theme or subtheme with an 9 individual subsection. Data extracts from all the data collection instruments will be presented alongside each theme or subtheme to support my interpretations. In Chapter 5, I will discuss the findings by comparing and contrasting them with the literature. I will also provide diagrams to explain the interrelationships of the themes and subthemes created in this study. Finally, I will discuss the implications of the findings. 1.11 Chapter Summary In this chapter, I have introduced the purpose and design of this qualitative and exploratory case study. The purpose of this study is aimed at understanding prospective educators’ viewpoints about CT education. The research design focused on investigating participants’ maker-centered and remote learning experiences with physical computing. In the literature review that follows, I will present the details of the research context, including the research gaps and theoretical framework. 10 Chapter 2: Literature Review 2.1 Chapter Overview This chapter is a literature review about the details of the research context. The review has five sections. First is a description of the propositions and pedagogies of computational thinking (CT). Second is an examination of the theories of maker-centered education. Third is a review of the pedagogical role of physical computing. Fourth is an explanation of the inadequate support for prospective educators to explore teaching CT through physical computing. The final section is a summary of the research gap and theoretical framework that guide my research design. 2.2 The Propositions and Pedagogies of Computational Thinking Since 2006, CT education has been growing rapidly and has a worldwide presence (Tedre & Denning, 2016). Many researchers credited this CT movement to Jeannette Wing (Denning, 2017; Grover & Pea, 2013), who described CT as a universal problem-solving skill for everyone (Wing, 2006). However, CT has much older epistemological roots (Denning, 2017). In 1945, George Polya described a 4-step mental process that anyone, not just mathematician, can use to solve problems (Denning, 2017; Polya, 2004). In the 1960s, computer scientists Alan Perlis and George Forsythe pioneered in the use of computers to teach students problem-solving skills (Forsythe, 1968; Katz, 1960). Also, it is widely believed that the term CT first occurred in Seymour Papert’s book Mindstorms (Denning, 2017; Lodi & Martini, 2021), in which Papert (1980) envisioned a future that everyone could “integrate computational thinking into everyday life” (p. 182). However, many believe that Papert’s profound influences on the CT movement have been undervalued (Lodi & Martini, 2021; Tedre & Denning, 2016). 11 To understand the CT movement better, we should also examine prior movements that have influenced the roles of thinking and computing in education. Illustrative examples include the critical thinking movement and the computer literacy movement. In fact, educators often contrast and compare the underlying concepts of these movements with CT to explain what CT means (Bers, 2010; Easterbrook, 2014; Kules, 2016; Papert, 1980). The meaning of CT has sparked extensive debates because Wing (2006) did not provide a formal definition. As a result, the definition of CT varies greatly in the literature. Denning (2017) criticized that existing definitions are too broad and confusing. However, Kafai et al. (2020) argued that the broad discourse on CT is fruitful. The debates have gone even further, leading to new terms and pedagogies such as “computational literacy” (diSessa, 2018, p. 1) and “computational action” (Tissenbaum et al., 2019, p. 34). This discussion provides an overview of the history and discourse of CT in four subsections. First, it compares critical thinking with CT. Second, it reviews Papert’s criticism of computer literacy. Third, it clarifies Wing’s propositions of CT and contrasts them with Papert’s ideas. Finally, it identifies the diverse perspectives and pedagogies of CT. 2.2.1 Comparison - Critical Thinking and Computational Thinking Since the 20th century, the exponential growth of information has led to a number of education reforms that focus on thinking and cognition (Halpern, 1998). The critical thinking movement and the CT movement are two resulting waves that have emerged from the information explosion. Students learn how to think in both movements, but with different goals and in different ways. 12 According to Sternberg (1986), “critical thinking comprises the mental processes, strategies, and representations people use to solve problems, make decisions, and learn new concepts” (p. 3). However, Lipman (1987) pointed out that Sternberg did not provide any details about the mental processes of critical thinking. Lipman (2003) defined critical thinking as “thinking that (1) facilitates judgment because it (2) relies on criteria, (3) is self-correcting, and (4) is sensitive to context” (p. 212). For example, a critical thinker compares different perspectives, corrects false assumptions, and pays attention to cultural contexts to assess arguments. Lipman’s definition resonates with what Dewey (1910) described as reflective thinking, which is the “active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge” (p. 6) based on logical and scientific reasoning. Thus, critical thinkers reflect to learn. Critical thinking can allow learners to position themselves so that they can avoid brainwashing (Lipman, 2003; Shermis, 1992), and also understand that rote memorization can be used as a propaganda tool. In fact, rote learning at schools has received severe criticism for over a century. Dewey (1910) cautioned that the emphasis on memorization may discredit education and manufacture unthoughtful students. Making students aware of propaganda has been a major premise of the critical thinking movement since World War II (Presseisen, 1986) because students can be vulnerable to the pervasive disinformation in mass media (Daniels, 2009; Shermis, 1992). Ironically, if students are forced to memorize information with insufficient time for critical thinking, education may become propaganda (Henderson, 1943). Critical thinking and CT are similar in some ways. First, both entail logic (Dewey, 1910; Wing, 2011). Second, both comprise skills and attitudes. For example, critical thinking involves analytical skills and open-mindedness to assess alternative arguments (Halpern, 1998); while CT 13 involves decomposition skills and courage to confront enormous problems (Wing, 2006). Third, both presume that mental skills can be learned and applied across disciplines (Kules, 2016; Shermis, 1992; Wing, 2011). Fourth, both construct meanings beyond surface-level information. For example, critical thinking decodes propaganda from disinformation (Shermis, 1992); while CT defines abstraction from data (Wing, 2006). However, critical thinking and CT are completely different in other ways. First, CT can only solve computable problems, but critical thinking does not have this limitation (Smith, 2021). Second, critical thinking focuses on judging information accurately (Lipman, 2003), but CT focuses on processing information efficiently and accurately (Wing, 2006, 2017). Third, critical thinking is limited by the thinker’s mental power, but CT can extend the thinker’s power with computational machines (Wing, 2006, 2017). Fourth, critical thinking does not process information “in a rote and mechanical manner” (Halpern, 1998, p. 451). In contrast, CT enhances the mechanical processing of information through abstraction and automation (Wing, 2017). The relationship between CT and critical thinking is controversial. Kules (2016) argued that CT and critical thinking are complimentary. A study by Yadav et al. (2011) showed similar perspectives, in which 86% of the pre-service teachers who received CT training agreed that CT enhances critical thinking. However, in another study by Walden et al. (2013), participants’ performances of CT and critical thinking did not correlate. Easterbrook (2014) even warned that CT discourages critical thinking because it blindly favors computable solutions. Nevertheless, Smith (2021) suggested that more research should explore the hands-on learning experiences that combine the powers of CT and critical thinking. This study is my response to Smith’s invitation. 14 2.2.2 The Responses to Computer Literacy In 1979, Molnar urged American educators to resolve “the computer literacy crisis” (p. 283) caused by the fierce global competition of computing technology. Although many agreed that computer literacy can benefit students (Johnson et al., 1980), many disagreed on what computer literacy means (Luehrmann, 1981; Norman, 1984; Papert, 1980). Also, Papert (1993) pointed out that educators should think beyond computer literacy, and consider the broader role of computing as a means to reform education. To exemplify his ideas, Papert (1980) co-invented the Logo programming language to engage young children in programming and interdisciplinary learning. Below is a brief review of Papert’s responses to computer literacy and how his responses influenced the foundations of CT. Before computer literacy gained public attention, computer-aided instruction (CAI) was a more popular research topic (Luehrmann, 1971). In the 1960s, many researchers believed that CAI can revolutionize education because (a) it can automatically individualize instruction based on student’s performance data, and (b) research has shown that CAI outperforms traditional instruction (Suppes, 1966). However, many educators cautioned that CAI may overstress rote memorization (Papert, 1993). For instance, Luehrmann (1971) called for more research on computer literacy instead of computerized drills. Similarly, Papert (1993) urged researchers to explore how children can program computers instead of how computers can program children. According to Norman (1984), computer literacy has four levels: the first level is knowing the basic computing concepts, such as what software means; the second level is gaining hands-on experience with computers; the third level is learning programming, but this is not essential “for the average person” (p. 223); and the last level is understanding computer science, which is “where the professional resides” (p. 224). Johnson et al. (1980) reviewed computer literacy 15 courses in the late 1970s to consolidate a list of common learning objectives. Most of the objectives can be characterized as the first level of computer literacy defined by Norman (1984). Luehrmann (1981) stated that Johnson et al.’s findings were alarming because computer literacy is not about recognizing basic computing concepts via textbooks and lectures, but is about gaining hands-on computing experience. Similarly, Papert (1993) criticized that computer literacy courses taught in schools lack practical knowledge. Recognizing the limitations of computer literacy and existing programming languages, Papert (1980) co-invented a more accessible programming language called Logo for children to create visual art, music, poem, simulation, and other interdisciplinary artifacts. Papert (1993) argued that “becoming literate means thinking differently than one did previously” (p. 10), and programming can empower learners to think in new and diverse perspectives. For example, students can write a program to draw a circle, and come up with their own theories to define a circle; students can also write a program to generate poems, and develop new understandings about sentence structures; and from these programming projects, students can also learn about computer science concepts like procedures and debugging (Papert, 1980). In summary, to Papert, the true potential of computing in education is not about promoting computer literacy, but is about providing a creative medium for learners to construct “a powerful and personal vision of the world” (1980, p. 210). On the one hand, Papert’s Logo has proved that even young children can learn programming. On the other hand, it has also exemplified that learning and applying the concepts of computation, which Wing (2006) described as CT, can benefit learners in any disciplines. Hence, although Norman (1984) stated that programming and computer science are not for everyone, Papert has refuted Norman’s statement with some promising examples, laying the foundations of CT as a knowledge for 16 everyone. Next, we will clarify what Wing means by CT; and contrast Wing’s and Papert’s ideas. 2.2.3 Computational Thinking – From Wing to Papert In 2006, Wing introduced CT as an important life skill, and described it as “thinking like a computer scientist” (p. 34). Many believe that Wing’s ideas about CT have made computer science education more accessible (Li et al., 2020). However, CT is not new (Tedre & Denning, 2016). Denning (2017) criticized Wing for ignoring CT’s historical development. Similarly, diSessa (2018) criticized Wing for not quoting Seymour Papert, who pioneered in making CT more accessible. Yet Lodi and Martini (2021) argued that “Wing’s CT and Papert’s CT” (p. 903) are different. To understand what CT really means, I will explain the essential aspects of CT from Wing’s perspective (Wing’s CT) and Papert’s perspective (Papert’s CT). In 2017, acknowledging Aho, Cuny, and Snyder’s input, Wing defined CT as “the thought processes involved in formulating a problem and expressing its solution(s) in such a way that a computer—human or machine—can effectively carry out” (p. 8). In other words, Wing’s CT is a thinking skill with three interrelated functions, which can (a) define and solve problems systematically, (b) represent solutions in computable forms, and (c) optimize data processing. Wing’s definition shows that CT’s main task is about representing data for effective processing, which is also the essence of computer science. For example, Forsythe (1967) defined computer science as “the art and science of representing and processing information” (p. 3). In fact, many emphasize that CT should be taught through the disciplinary perspective of computer science (Denning, 2017; Lodi & Martini, 2021; Wing, 2006). Wing’s CT, in essence, is a thinking skill that frames and solves problems by applying computer science principles. 17 In Mindstorms, Papert (1980) did not define CT but predicted that CT will become part of our daily lives. Bers (2021) described Papert’s CT as the thinking methods that children can learn from programming. Butler and Leahy (2021) described Papert’s CT as the integration of algorithmic thinking, critical thinking, and computing in personal and meaningful projects. Lodi and Martini (2021) described Papert’s CT as a means to engage children in interdisciplinary learning, not just intellectually but also socially and emotionally. The above descriptions align with Papert’s (1980) main idea in Mindstorms: Children should learn programming to develop their own interdisciplinary projects that offer “new possibilities for learning, thinking, and growing emotionally as well as cognitively” (pp. 17-18), especially the possibilities “to think about thinking and to learn about learning” (p. 23). Papert’s CT, in essence, is about engaging children to participate in programming, empowering them to cross disciplinary boundaries, and supporting their agency to develop new perspectives to feel, to learn, and to think. Wing’s CT and Papert’s CT differ greatly. For the purpose of this study, I will highlight two pedagogical differences between them. First, Wing’s CT emphasizes telling, but Papert’s CT emphasizes doing. Tedre and Denning (2016) described Wing’s CT as a list of “textbook level computing techniques” (p. 124). Wing tells us the concepts of CT, but not what we can do to learn them. Also, Wing (2006) stressed that CT is “conceptualizing, not programming” (p. 35). Wing regards CT as concepts that teachers should teach, and sees programming as a possible application. In contrast, Papert (1980) regards programming as experiences that should be accessible to learners, and sees CT as a possible learning outcome. Denning (2017) pointed out that Wing’s CT emphasizes facts acquisition over skills development, but Papert’s CT has an opposite emphasis. In other words, Wing’s CT is teacher-centered, which requires didactic teaching of abstract CT concepts, 18 positioning teachers as experts; but Papert’s CT is learner-centered, which empowers learners to develop CT from hands-on experiences, positioning teachers as facilitators. Second, both Wing’s CT and Papert’s CT can blur disciplinary boundaries, but they have different focuses. Wing (2006, 2017) explained that what urged her to write about CT was the decreasing enrolment in computer science. Thus, Wing’s CT blurs the boundary of computer science, and encourages learners from other disciplines to explore computer science. In contrast, Papert’s CT blurs the boundaries of other disciplines, and encourages learners to use computer science as an entry point to explore knowledge holistically. Papert (1980) explained that programming can blur disciplinary boundaries because it acts as a human-computer language that turns computers into a creative medium, in which children can transform disciplinary ideas that they felt dissociated with into knowledge they treasure to make their own games, graphics, music, and poems. In other words, Wing’s CT is a worldview grounded in computer science principles, while Papert’s CT is an interdisciplinary learning tool grounded in constructionism (Lodi & Martini, 2021). In Section 2.3, I will explain constructionism as a major theory in maker-centered education that can facilitate learners to cross disciplinary boundaries. Forsythe (1967) believes that the applications of computer science in other disciplines can generate insights to advance the discipline of computer science. Hence, Wing’s CT, which focuses on computer science, and Papert’s CT, which focuses on interdisciplinary learning that depends on computer science, are equally important. However, Wing and Papert only represents two distinct perspectives that give us an overview of CT. Next, we will turn to the diverse perspectives of CT. 19 2.2.4 Computational Thinking and Beyond Wing (2006) argued that everyone should learn CT, but some disagree. Denning (2017) agreed that CT is an important skill for computation designers, but refuted the unverified claim that CT is a transferable problem-solving skill for everyone. Also, overstressing the importance of CT can cause bias, making people neglect problems that do not have obvious computable solutions, such as racism, and overproduce computational products, such as digital gadgets, creating more social and environmental problems rather than solving them (Easterbrook, 2014). There is no consensus on what CT education should look like. However, Kafai et al. (2020) summarized the diverse perspectives into three framings: (a) cognitive framing, in which teachers design instructions and practices for learners to comprehend CT concepts such as data model, and develop CT competencies such as programming proficiency; (b) situated framing, in which learners participate in programming to create interest-driven projects, share ideas with peers, and develop not only CT but also soft skills, such as creative thinking and collaboration skills; and (c) critical framing, in which learners integrate CT and critical thinking to identify and solve social issues, including issues that CT can create, such as bias in artificial intelligence. Tissenbaum et al. (2019) facilitated some disadvantaged teenage girls to learn CT, and empowered them to develop mobile apps that improve personal safety, water security, and education accessibility in their community. Kafai et al. (2020) explained that Tissenbaum et al.’s research is an example of employing multiple framings to make CT education more inclusive. Programming has many forms in CT education. Learners can verbally program their peers to make sandwiches in unplugged activities (Tran, 2019), simulate social phenomena in agent-based programming (Sengupta et al., 2021), and make interactive toys with electronics and microcontrollers (Rode et al., 2015). Drag-and-drop interface in App Inventor and Scratch has 20 made the development of mobile apps and video games more accessible (Resnick et al., 2009; Tissenbaum et al., 2019). Specialized programming languages were also designed for teaching domain-specific contents, so that learners can visualize data in social studies, create animations with math equations, and make chatbots in language lessons (Guzdial & Shreiner, 2021). CT assessment is challenging. To assess the cognitive aspects of CT, researchers have explored the use of written tests (Tran, 2019), programming challenges (Brennan & Resnick, 2012), and automated analysis of source code (Fagerlund et al., 2021). However, many pointed out that such assessments failed to examine how learners use CT to understand the world, express themselves, and interact with others (Brennan & Resnick, 2012; Sengupta et al., 2021). Many believe that CT is becoming a new literacy (Bers, 2021; Guzdial, 2008; Kafai et al., 2020; Li et al., 2020). However, preparing teachers to teach CT is a major challenge that needs more research (Butler & Leahy, 2021; Chang & Peterson, 2018; Grover & Pea, 2013). 2.3 The Theories of Maker-Centered Education To make CT education more accessible, Rode et al. (2015) argued that educators should explore “computational making” (p. 1), leveraging the powers of maker-centered education. This section provides a brief overview of the maker movement, the theories of maker-centered education, and the advantages of teaching CT in maker-centered education. In 2005, Dougherty founded the Make magazine with a belief – “We all are makers” (2012, p. 11). Following the success of the magazine, Dougherty (2012) also launched the annual Maker Faires around the world for makers to show their projects, and to learn from each other. The advent of fabrication tools like 3D printers, low-cost computing tools like microcontrollers, and the culture of making, sharing, and learning among makers have created the maker 21 movement that Hatch (2014), founder of the makerspace called TechShop, described as the democracy to empower anyone to innovate, so that “anyone can change the world” (p. 10). Most media and commercial makerspaces claim that the maker movement is inclusive for everyone. However, some criticized that the maker movement is dominated by white male (Halverson & Sheridan, 2014) and inaccessible for people with disabilities (Bar-El & Worsley, 2021). The maker movement has inspired educators to rethink their pedagogies, the roles of teachers and learners, and the design of inclusive learning environments (Halverson & Sheridan, 2014). For example, Brightworks is a K-12 school in San Francisco with a maker-centered curriculum (Bevan et al., 2014). Learners in Brightworks are empowered to have the agency to change the learning environments for their own needs. Hence, classrooms become accessible studios that are frequently redesigned and rebuilt by learners, learners become inventors and experts of their own creative projects, and teachers become collaborators instead of the source of knowledge (Clapp et al., 2016). Clapp et al. (2016) argued that maker-centered education is about cultivating “maker empowerment” (p. 12), defined as “a sensitivity to the designed dimension of objects and systems, along with the inclination and capacity to shape one’s world through building, tinkering, re/designing, or hacking” (p. 98). In other words, maker-centered education empowers learners to identify themselves as makers: who are curious about how things were made and how they work; who desire to make something with a self-identified purpose; and who can develop the knowledge to playfully make or modify something by hands-on trial and error. Maker empowerment is rooted in critical pedagogy, in which Freire (1974) argued that education should empower learners to “develop the critical consciousness” (p. 73) that they are not objects manipulated by others, but “responsible subjects” (p. 36) who can change the world. 22 Consciousness emphasized by Freire echoes with sensitivity emphasized by Clapp et al. because both empower learners to be aware of their agency, and then take action for their own purposes. Maker empowerment is also rooted in constructionism, in which Papert (1988) argued that education should empower learners to construct “objects-to-think-with” (p. 11), which are meaningful artifacts that learners make to understand abstract concepts. Constructionism is grounded in constructivism (Papert & Harel, 1991), which posits that learning requires learners to actively reconstruct meanings (Piaget, 1973). Papert (1993) used “bricolage” (p. 131) to name the hands-on, playful, and creative learning experience, while Clapp et al. called it tinkering. Both mean learners need something concrete to play around with to construct abstract meanings. Papert (1980) also called the concrete objects “transitional objects” (p. 187), while Star and Griesemer (1989) called them “boundary objects” (p. 387). Both refer to objects that enable people to express ideas, understand other people’s perspectives, build new relationships with different knowledge, and cross disciplinary boundaries (Papert, 1980; Star & Griesemer, 1989). An advantage of teaching CT in maker-centered education is to avoid what Papert (1988) described as “technocentrism” (p. 4). Technocentrism is a mindset that overstresses the importance of technology and its possible effects on learners (Brennan, 2015; Papert, 1988). A technocentric mindset can inhibit holistic education if educators focus on the effectiveness of technology, but neglect what learners develop from their lived experiences, such as their social and emotional skills (Sengupta et al., 2021). On the one hand, educators should shift from a technocentric mindset to a maker-centered mindset, empowering learners to have the agency to do something meaningful with technology (Papert, 1988). On the other hand, learners can also benefit from developing their maker mindset. Regalla (2016) characterized maker mindset as the disposition to (a) stay curious about the world, (b) cross disciplinary boundaries to solve 23 problems, (c) create playfully to develop social-emotional skills, (d) enjoy sharing and collaboration, (e) believe nothing is impossible, and (f) embrace failures and mistakes. Maker mindset can help learners overcome challenges they face in learning CT, and develop their competencies in a playful way. Tissenbaum et al. (2019) facilitated teenagers to learn CT by making mobile apps. Rode et al. (2015) facilitated children to learn CT by tinkering with microcontrollers, electronics, and fabrics. Both are examples of teaching CT in maker-centered education. Tissenbaum et al. (2019) argued that educators should foster “computational identity and digital empowerment” (p. 34), and facilitate learners to become producers that can use CT and technology to take life-changing action. Digital empowerment and maker empowerment share a lot in common because both emphasize the importance of promoting student agency over teaching factual concepts (Clapp et al., 2016; Tissenbaum et al., 2019). Rode et al. (2015) used a microcontroller called LilyPad, a physical computing tool for making e-textiles, to empower young learners to design their own soft monsters, and bring them to life with interactive LED lights. Rode et al. (2015) argued that teaching CT with maker-centered activities can benefit learners because they can develop CT competencies alongside creative thinking and aesthetic skills. Rode et al. (2015) pointed out that further research is needed to explore the pedagogies of developing these skills in CT education. Next, we will turn to other physical computing tools and their pedagogical roles. 2.4 The Pedagogical Role of Physical Computing Physical computing generally means using programmable hardware to make tangible and interactive artefacts (Govender & Govender, 2021; Przybylla & Romeike, 2014; Sentance et al., 24 2017). The robotic turtle co-invented by Papert (1980) was one of the earliest examples that brought physical computing to child education, in which children can use the Logo programming language to control the turtle’s behavior. Papert’s turtle and Logo programming language have influenced the development of LEGO/Logo in the MIT Media Lab, which was later commercialized as a popular robotic kit called Lego Mindstorms (Blikstein, 2013). LEGO/Logo and Lego Mindstorms empowered children to create their own robotic creatures using Lego bricks and variants of the Logo programming language (Blikstein, 2013; Papert & Harel, 1991). According to Blikstein (2013), Papert’s contributions to physical computing and his constructionist theories were crucial in shaping the maker movement, long before the development of other physical computing tools like Arduino. Arduino is a popular microcontroller that makers use alongside sensors and actuators to add interactivities to their projects (Blikstein, 2013). However, Blikstein (2013) pointed out that Arduino is not kid-friendly because prerequisite electronics knowledge is needed. Yet other tools have been designed to make physical computing more inclusive. For example, Makey Makey is a microcontroller that empowers kids to turn fruits into sensors without the need of any extra electronics; and LilyPad is another microcontroller with a flowerlike design that challenges the stereotypes about what physical computing can do and who can participate, inviting users to create interactive fashion items known as e-textiles (Blikstein, 2013). Likewise, the design of Micro:bit, a microcontroller launched by BBC in 2016 (Austin et al., 2020), is also aimed at making physical computing more accessible. Micro:bit has a design strategy similar to what Resnick et al. (2009) described as “low-floor/high-ceiling/wide-walls” (p. 4). With its drag-and-drop interface, Micro:bit is easy for beginners to get started in programming (low-floor). Even a grade 3 student without prior programming experience can 25 program a Micro:bit to play animations on its 5 x 5 LED screen (Coquitlam School District, 2018). Yet Micro:bit is also useful for advanced users (high-ceiling), exemplified by an artificial intelligence project that Tseng et al. (2021) created, which can collect gesture data from a Micro:bit via Bluetooth to train a machine learning model. Micro:bit also acts as a versatile tool and an expressive medium (wide-walls). For example, the annual Micro:bit do your :bit competition have been providing a platform for students around the world to showcase their creative projects, using Micro:bit to solve diverse sustainability issues that they care about (Micro:bit Educational Foundation, n.d.-a). An important pedagogical role of physical computing is to provide a means to turn CT concepts into actions. Przybylla and Romeike (2014) argued that engaging learners in physical computing can stimulate them to reflect on how technology can impact our lives, and then take actions to design better technology. Bers (2021) argued that physical computing tools like robotic kits can inspire learners to express their ideas in their creative projects. Also, physical computing can empower learners to connect CT knowledge with the tangible world to solve real-world problems (Juškevičienė et al., 2021; Rode et al., 2015). Korhonen et al. (2019) pointed out that using physical computing tools like Micro:bit in the classrooms can facilitate learners to cross disciplinary boundaries. Moreover, physical computing experiences can facilitate learners to develop “STEAM literacy” (Kim et al., 2020, p. 5) and “CT literacy” (Juškevičienė et al., 2021, p. 175). In other words, physical computing can provide diverse opportunities for learners to integrate CT with science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics. Another pedagogical role of physical computing is to make programming more fun (Govender & Govender, 2021). Also, Kalelioglu and Sentance (2020) found that physical computing can empower learners to work at their own pace and allow educators to assess CT 26 through portfolio-based assessment. A pedagogical challenge of physical computing is about how to integrate it in remote learning. A growing number of resources for learning physical computing remotely was found but related research is scarce (Micro:bit Educational Foundation, n.d.-b). Chakarov et al. (2021) discussed challenges such as limited class time and opportunities such as making meaningful use of students’ home environment, but they have only reported one teacher’s experience. Kalelioglu and Sentance (2020) pointed out the need for further research to examine students’ perspectives on using Micro:bit for their learning. Research on pre-service teachers’ perspectives about learning and teaching CT through physical computing is scarce. 2.5 The Voices of Prospective Educators Papert (1980) argued that a major challenge in computing education is supporting more educators to implement his constructionist approach. Also, many believe that prospective educators need more opportunities to learn about CT education (Butler & Leahy, 2021; Chang & Peterson, 2018; Grover & Pea, 2013; Tran, 2019; Wing, 2017; Yadav et al., 2011, 2017), maker-centered education (Jones et al., 2017; Rodriguez et al., 2021), and physical computing (Govender & Govender, 2021; Kim et al., 2020). Below is the review of some relevant research. Although CT is taught in elementary schools (Coquitlam School District, 2018; Tran, 2019), research on preparing elementary pre-service teachers for CT education is particularly scarce (Butler & Leahy, 2021). Pre-service teachers expressed the lack of opportunities to learn CT (Chang & Peterson, 2018). Also, the voices of pre-service teachers were often neglected in CT research. For example, although Tran (2019) provided opportunities for pre-service teachers to teach CT, their teaching experiences and perspectives about CT were not reported. 27 Yadav et al. (2017) surveyed 134 pre-service teachers and argued that many participants defined CT inaccurately. However, Yadav et al. focused mainly on the cognitive framing of CT, which emphasizes the acquisition of CT concepts, paying little attention to the situated and critical framings (Kafai et al., 2020). In contrast, Butler and Leahy (2021) supported 51 pre-service teachers to develop their constructionist approaches to teach CT, and argued that many participants showed deep understandings of CT in their practicum. Butler and Leahy did not only examine participants’ understandings of CT concepts, but also whether they can nurture “computational participation” (Kafai, 2016, p. 26) among students to integrate CT for their creative projects. However, Butler and Leahy collected their data from participants’ research assignments and group interviews only. Yadav et al. (2017) pointed out that future research may explore obtaining more in-depth data through individual interview. Blackley et al. (2017) argued that engaging pre-service teachers in maker-centered experiences can develop their self-efficacy in teaching STEM education. Also, research about preparing pre-service teachers for maker-centered education suggests that more time should be given for participants’ design iteration and reflection (Falls, 2020; Rodriguez et al., 2021). Additionally, research suggests that intensive workshops leave little time for participants to tinker with making and physical computing (Blackley et al., 2017; Govender & Govender, 2021; Jones et al., 2017; Korhonen et al., 2019). Moreover, many research studies did not include participants’ creative processes and artifacts in the data analysis (Chang & Peterson, 2018; Korhonen et al., 2019). Among the scarce literature on preparing teachers for maker-centered education, data collection related to participants’ hands-on experiences with maker technology like 3D printers are limited (Falls, 2020; Rodriguez et al., 2021). Moreover, participants’ experiences with 28 physical computing are either absent or minimal in many studies (Blackley et al., 2017; Falls, 2020; Jones et al., 2017; Rodriguez et al., 2021). In some studies, physical computing was included in the methodologies but CT was not discussed in their findings (Govender & Govender, 2021; Kim et al., 2020; Korhonen et al., 2019). The samples in many studies only included teachers or pre-service teachers with computer science backgrounds (Govender & Govender, 2021; Kalelioglu & Sentance, 2020) or STEM backgrounds (Blackley et al., 2017; Rodriguez et al., 2021). Thus, the viewpoints of prospective educators from other disciplines were excluded. However, Kim et al. (2020) argued that collaboration between pre-service teachers from multiple majors can facilitate the development of maker-centered curriculum in their future classrooms. In computing education, researchers often focus on their intervention designs but ignore teachers’ voices (Sengupta et al., 2021). Also, Cook-Sather (2006) pointed out that “young people have unique perspectives on learning, teaching, and schooling” (p. 1), and argued that these perspectives or “student voices” (p. 3) are important in education research. However, in CT education, there is a dearth of research about student voice, and the voices of prospective educators in particular. 2.6 Chapter Summary In this chapter, I have compared and contrasted CT with critical thinking. I have also explained the historical context of CT, such as the computer literacy movement. Furthermore, I have reviewed the concepts and research about CT, physical computing, and maker-centered education. In the following, I will summarize the research gaps and the theoretical framework that informed the research design. 29 In CT research, researchers may unintentionally suppress prospective educators’ voices. Many studies collect data from surveys or assignments in teacher education programs to examine prospective educators’ viewpoints on CT (Butler & Leahy, 2021; Yadav et al., 2017). Yet divergent viewpoints are labelled as misperceptions that educators need to fix (Yadav et al., 2017). Also, participants may have silenced their own voices to align with their lecturer’s viewpoints. In addition, prospective educators lack opportunities to tinker with making, programming, and physical computing. Their perspectives on CT are mainly shaped by didactic lectures rather than hands-on experiences. Also, the large class size in teacher education programs can make in-depth individual interviews and observations infeasible. Thus, prospective educators’ viewpoints and lived experiences in CT, physical computing, and maker-centered education are substantially under-researched. Moreover, there is a dearth of research about how educators can remotely support learners to participate in physical computing. The theoretical framework of this study comprises three theories that relate to maker-centered education: maker empowerment (Clapp et al., 2016), critical pedagogy (Freire, 1974), and constructionism (Papert, 1988). Tissenbaum et al.’s (2019) research study is a good example that I would use to summarize the above theories. In Tissenbaum et al.’s study, some teenage girls wondered how mobile app development works, and were determined to make their own apps to improve people’s lives. Their self-determination to understand and change the world exemplified the power of maker empowerment. Also, the teenage girls became conscious that women were often targeted by criminals in their community, so they took the initiative to develop an app to improve women’s safety. Their consciousness of the oppressors in their community exemplified the importance of critical pedagogy. In addition, although the teenage girls had never participated in programming, they became acquainted with abstract CT concepts 30 through developing the app. Their hands-on learning experiences exemplified constructionism. The theoretical framework guided the design of the maker activity in this study, and empowered participants to reflect on their pedagogical viewpoints on CT education based on their lived experiences. This can lead to a richer and deeper understanding about how learners can develop CT through physical computing using a more thoughtful approach. In the next chapter, I will explain my research methods that applied the theoretical framework to address the research gaps. 31 Chapter 3: Research Methods 3.1 Chapter Overview The literature review in the previous chapter has pointed out that little research is aimed at understanding prospective educators’ viewpoints about CT education, their lived experiences with physical computing, and how physical computing can be supported by remote learning. To address these research gaps, an exploratory case study was conducted. In this chapter, I will explain the details of the case study, which include the (a) research purposes, (b) research questions, (c) research philosophy and methodology, (d) research design, (e) case selection and sampling, (f) data collection procedures, (g) data analysis, (h) trustworthiness and reflexivity, and (i) limitations and delimitations. 3.2 Research Purposes The primary purpose of this study is to address a research gap pertains to prospective educators’ viewpoints about CT education. It aimed at understanding prospective educators’ lived experiences in maker-centered education, and their perceptions of how physical computing may empower learners to develop CT. The secondary purpose of this study is to address how educators can remotely support learners to participate in physical computing. The findings of this study may inform future research and teacher education programs about CT, physical computing, and maker-centered education. Furthermore, this study can also inform the instructional practices and educational technology to make remote learning more effective. 3.3 Research Questions In this study, prospective educators’ maker-centered experiences with Micro:bits were investigated through an activity that I facilitated remotely. Three research questions were 32 formulated to understand prospective educators’ viewpoints and lived experiences about CT and physical computing. The research questions have been explained in Chapter 1. Table 1 summarizes the research questions and their purposes. Table 1 Summary of Research Questions Research Question Purpose Q1 What do prospective educators think CT means? Understand prospective educators’ perceptions and interpretations of CT. Q2 What do prospective educators perceive as the strategies to teach CT with Micro:bits? Understand prospective educators’ viewpoints of how learners can develop CT through physical computing. Q3 What do prospective educators’ learning experiences with Micro:bits look like? Understand prospective educators’ maker-centered experiences and remote learning experiences 3.4 Research Philosophy and Methodology To explore the research questions, I have employed a qualitative research approach. In the following, I will explain my positionality and methodology. 3.4.1 Researcher Positionality Some qualitative researchers position themselves as the instruments to collect data (Bourke, 2014; England, 2010; Nowell et al., 2017), while other qualitative researchers position themselves working with the participants as co-constructors of meaning (Braun & Clarke, 2021; Goldkuhl, 2012). Either way, a qualitative research study can be influenced by the researcher’s worldview or positionality (Holmes, 2020). Below is a brief account of my positionality, including my ontological and epistemological assumptions, my reflection on my previous career as a makerspace instructor, and my roles in this study. My education and career in digital design have affected my philosophical assumptions. My experiences in the advertising and digital media industries taught me that meanings are 33 shaped by language, design, culture, and social life. My ontological stance about knowledge aligns with relativism, which posits that truth is not universal because reality depends on human perspectives (Braun & Clarke, 2021). My epistemological stance aligns with social constructivism, which asserts that knowing requires learners to actively construct knowledge in their social experiences (Amineh & Asl, 2015; Vygotsky, 1978). While teaching robotics as a makerspace instructor, I had not come across CT. It was a term I was unfamiliar with. Thus, my preconceptions for CT were mostly influenced by the literature that I have reviewed for this study, and not by my earlier teaching experiences. However, I regard my past role in maker-centered education as a resource for this inquiry, and acknowledge that it has influenced my research by focusing on the use of Micro:bits to explore my research questions. I had two roles in this study. My first role was a facilitator who provided resources for participants’ maker activities. My second role was a researcher who co-constructed meaning and knowledge with participants for my inquiry. I was aware that my dual roles could lead to issues related to the power relations between myself and participants, suppressing and marginalizing their own voices. Therefore, I devised protocols to provide a safe environment for participants to share their ideas, and to prevent making them feel obligated to (a) learn about CT, (b) provide their perspectives about CT, or (c) align their perspectives with mine. I will explain the protocols in other subsections of this chapter. 3.4.2 Qualitative Methodology I employed a qualitative methodology in this study because it supported my research purposes and ontological assumption about knowledge. My research did not aim at assessing 34 participants’ learning outcomes or measuring the effectiveness of the learning resources that I provided. Instead, my research focused on the in-depth understanding of participants’ diverse perceptions and lived experiences. Compared to quantitative study, qualitative research is a more effective approach to understand a phenomenon holistically with the use of perceptual or experiential data (Merriam, 1998; Stake, 1995). In other words, to answer my research questions, I needed rich and qualitative information such as interview transcripts, rather than quantifiable data such as test scores. Also, quantitative research is rooted in positivism, which believes that reality is singular and objective (Braun & Clarke, 2021; Hamilton & Corbett-Whittier, 2012). In contrast, qualitative research is grounded in interpretivism, which acknowledges that reality is nonsingular and subjective (Harrison et al., 2017; Yazan, 2015). My relativist assumption about reality as explained in my researcher positionality is compatible with the interpretivist belief, but incompatible with the positivist worldview. Thus, a qualitative methodology was used rather than a quantitative approach. 3.4.3 Exploratory Case Study This qualitative research was an exploratory case study. I will explain why this study had an exploratory orientation first. Then, I will justify why I chose a case study research approach. When a research study does not have a predetermined hypothesis to predict and explain its possible outcomes, the research can be categorized as an exploratory study (Baxter & Jack, 2008; Yin, 2018). Also, according to (Yin, 2018), exploratory studies often “focus mainly on ‘what’ questions” (p. 10), which are needed to develop new understanding and theoretical ideas for future research. This study was exploratory in its nature because I aimed at exploring an under-researched topic that I did not attempt to predict the results. Moreover, my research questions were all formulated as “what” questions that focused on participants’ perceptions and 35 experiences. The underlying concepts, viewpoints, interactions, and processes that participants’ perceived and experienced in this study may provide theoretical insights for future inquiries. Qualitative case study is a research approach that conducts fieldwork and interprets experiential data to construct holistic understanding of a case or cases (Merriam, 1998; Stake, 1995). According to Stake (1995), a case is an entity that can be characterized by a situational and delimiting boundary. For example, a case can be a teacher in a new course, the low-income students in an expensive summer camp, a makerspace that is closing down, or a school with an experimental curriculum. A qualitative case study approach was used in this inquiry because of three main reasons. First, the strength of qualitative case study lies in its capability to collect and analyze diverse perceptions that peoples constructed within a specific context (Merriam, 1998; Stake, 1995). Thus, it could effectively explore my research questions about participants’ perceptions that were contextualized within their hands-on experiences. Second, qualitative case study is a research approach with a constructivist epistemological assumption (Merriam, 1998; Stake, 1995), which aligns with my epistemological belief as explained in my researcher positionality. Third, a case study is a flexible research approach. According to Stake (1995), case study researchers can use any appropriate data collection and analysis methods to fulfill their research purposes. In the next section, I will explain the details of the qualitative methods in this exploratory case study. 3.5 Research Design In the following, I will first define the case of this exploratory case study. Then, I will provide the information of the maker activity and resources that were made available to the participants. Finally, I will explain the data collection instruments that I employed. 36 3.5.1 Defining a Case In this study, a single case was defined as a prospective educator who participated in a maker activity that had two specific attributes. First, the maker activity was centered on physical computing. Second, the maker activity was facilitated remotely. These two factors were needed for my research purposes. In addition, during the period of this study, the UBC Okanagan Behavioural Research Ethics Board (BREB) recommended that researchers should minimize physical contact with, and among, participants because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, by facilitating the maker activity remotely, I also addressed a safety concern. For the purposes of this study, the definition of prospective educator was not limited to pre-service teacher. I defined prospective educator broadly as university student from any discipline who could share their pedagogical perspectives for this inquiry. The inclusive definition was made with three reasons. First, I believe that schoolteachers are not the only educators in maker-centered education. I also regard makerspace instructors, engineers of educational technology, librarians, or someone who provides learners with resources in any maker activities as educators in maker-centered education. Second, when people participate in programming and physical computing, “the line between learners and teachers can fade” (Papert, 1980, p. 180). Participants from any disciplines could play a teaching role in this study by sharing their knowledge with other participants, and with other makers in the future. Third, with a more inclusive definition of prospective educator, diverse data collected from participants with different backgrounds could lead to a richer and deeper understanding of the research topic. 37 3.5.2 Maker Activity The maker activity was designed as a creative challenge. Participants were recruited to work on any creative projects related to sustainable development with the resources provided in this study. The resources included (a) a set of Micro:bit maker kit, (b) a package of craft materials, (c) two web applications, (d) the access to a blog, and (e) individual Zoom meetings for workshops or troubleshooting. The design of the maker activity was informed by the theoretical framework centered around maker empowerment (Clapp et al., 2016), critical pedagogy (Freire, 1974), and constructionism (Papert, 1988) that I have discussed in Chapter 2. The maker activity was designed to foster maker empowerment by providing participants the opportunities to tinker with physical computing. It also provided participants with the time and freedom for critical thinking, and to become more aware of the sustainability issues surrounding people’s lives. The maker activity also allowed participants to create tangible artifacts that supported the construction of new knowledge. In other words, by providing participants the resources, time, freedom, and opportunities to be immersed in their hands-on experiences, participants were empowered to reflect on their pedagogical perspectives on CT education based on their own perceptions and lived experiences. 3.5.3 Maker Kit and Craft Materials The Micro:bit maker kit comprised 15 components, including a Micro:bit (Version 2), two external sensors, three external actuators, and several other accessories (See Appendix A). The package of craft materials contained bought materials and also used materials that I collected from a donor in Facebook Marketplace (See Appendix B). A sticker with a QR code was 38 attached to the maker kit. Participants could scan the QR code to access to an online documentation about the basic information of the maker kit and craft materials (See Figure 1). Figure 1 QR Code Stickers Note. The online documentation contains a list of craft materials, and the information about the components in the maker kit, including some basic tutorials of the components. The following is the URL of the online documentation - https://bit.ly/thoughtfulcomputing 3.5.4 Web Applications for the Internet of Things Micro:bit does not have internet connection ability on its own. To support participants to learn about the Internet of Things (IoT), which is a topic pertinent to physical computing, I have created two web applications that enable a Micro:bit to act like an IoT device by using the internet access of a computer. For example, in one of the web applications, participants could configure the application to post a tweet on Twitter when the environmental light level measured by the Micro:bit’s internal light sensor exceeded a specified value. The web applications require users to establish a USB connection between a Micro:bit and a computer that supports WebUSB (Reilly Grant et al., 2022). I used a WebUSB JavaScript library written by Dr. Bill Siever, who 39 released the library and example codes under the MIT license (Siever, 2019). I also used Dr. Robert Pastel’s website that explains Micro:bit’s WebUSB connection as a reference during the development of the applications (Pastel, n.d.). The applications rely on two free IoT services called IFTTT and dweet.io to enable a Micro:bit to interact with other online applications like Twitter (dweet.io, n.d.; IFTTT, n.d.). The web applications were created and hosted in a web development platform called Glitch (Glitch, n.d.). All the source codes of the web applications are available and open for anyone to access and modify (See Appendix C). 3.5.5 Remote Learning Resources To support participants’ remote learning, I created a blog for this research. A blog is an effective remote learning resource because it is interactive, informative, and accessible anytime (Harricharan & Bhopal, 2014). As a remote learning tool, the blog had two main functions. First, the blog provided a platform for participants to interact with each other via the posts they created. Second, it also acted as a hub to host the online learning resources for participants to learn about Micro:bits, CT, and sustainable development. The resources comprised 17 video tutorials about Micro:bits that I created and the links to other learning materials. The descriptions and links of all the learning resources are listed in Appendix D. In addition, I also acted as a remote facilitator with two main roles. My first role was to encourage participation, while my second role was to support participants when they faced obstacles. Both required my continuous and responsive communication with participants. Communication channels between me and participants included the blog, emails, and Zoom meetings. Participants could contact me via the blog or email when they had any questions. I also used email to (a) share new tutorial links with participants, (b) invite them to view and comment other participants’ posts, and (c) contact participants to inquire if they faced any challenges. 40 Zoom meetings were used for Micro:bit workshops and troubleshooting any issues that participants came across in their projects. All Zoom meetings in this study were conducted individually rather than in a group to protect participants’ anonymity. 3.5.6 Data Collection Instruments Diverse data collection instruments were used in this study, which included (a) an initial online survey, (b) individual workshops and support sessions in Zoom, (c) participants’ blog posts, (d) individual semi-structured interviews in Zoom, and (e) a final online survey. All data collection instruments of this study were used for thematic analysis (See Section 3.8). The initial survey comprised 12 questions (See Appendix E). The questions focused on understanding participants’ general information like their career interests and prior knowledge about physical computing and CT. The final online survey comprised 14 questions (See Appendix G), which were designed to facilitate data triangulation (Merriam, 1998; Stake, 1995). The initial and final surveys were not used for pre-post comparison because this study did not aim at measuring or explaining any changes in participants’ responses. Participants’ blog posts were collected for data analysis. The data included descriptions, discussions, images, and videos about their projects, which provided rich information to facilitate the interpretations of participants’ hands-on experiences with physical computing. Similarly, data from Zoom workshops and support sessions were collected because they contained rich information about the challenges participants faced in their remote learning experiences. To collect perceptual and experiential data across multiple cases, an individual semi-structured interview was designed. Semi-structured interview requires researchers to prepare a set of initial prompts and follow-up questions into a single script for all interviews, so that every 41 interviewee can provide detailed responses pertinent to the same set of questions in the same order (McIntosh & Morse, 2015). I adopted a semi-structured format for the interview design because it could generate well-structured data that highlighted the similarities and differences in participants’ responses. It would also allow me to gain valuable insights and a deeper understanding of participants’ perceptions and lived experiences. The semi-structured interview had 15 open-ended questions. All interviews were conducted in Zoom. Each participant who completed the interview was provided with twenty Canadian dollars as a token of appreciation. The interview script and details of the interview questions are listed in Appendix F. Participation in any activities of this research is voluntary. If participants did not want to participate in any data collection activities, they could still receive the same resources that I provided for every participant. This mitigated the risks that participants would feel coerced to take part in the research. Also, I did not collect any data about participants’ gender or ethnicity to mitigate the risks of “stereotype threat” (Steele, 1997, p. 613). Stereotype threat is the potential discomfort perceived by research participants when they worry that others will judge them based on certain negative stereotypes (UBC Equity & Inclusion Office, 2020). Also, this study did not aim at investigating any causes and effects related to gender or ethnicity. 3.6 Case Selection and Sampling I selected the research site and participants for the use of purposive sampling (Yin, 2018). I chose a university as the recruitment site based on three criteria. First, the university should consist of diverse academic departments. Second, it should have a teacher education program. Third, the university should be situated in an area within or close to a school district that CT is part of the curriculum. The above conditions improved the likelihood that I could sample informative cases to answer my research questions. The resulting site that fulfilled the 42 requirements was a university in Western Canada, located in a province that has integrated CT in its curriculum (Gannon & Buteau, 2018). I also used purposive sampling to recruit university students in the selected site that could (a) participate in the maker activity in this study, and (b) share their pedagogical perspectives on CT based on their hands-on experiences. Participants were recruited with the use of advertisements that provided access to an online consent form (See Appendix H). The details of the recruitment procedures will be described in Section 3.7.1. Among the 10 participants who gave their consent, six completed the maker activity and interview, two did not complete the maker activity and interview, and two withdrew from the study. The six participants who completed the maker activity and interview were selected as the cases for this research because they satisfied the sampling criteria. Table 2 below provides an overview of the cases, with selected information drawn from all the data collection instruments. I randomly assigned each participant a non-gender-specific pseudonym to protect their anonymity. Table 2 Overview of the Cases Participant (Pseudonym) Academic Interest / Background Career Interest Project Self-Reported Prior Knowledge CT Physical Computing Coding Ellis Computer Science Entrepreneur of educational technology Plant watering and lighting system Medium Medium High Riley Education Teacher Plant watering system High Medium Medium Kelsey Chemistry Teacher (was a teacher) Autonomous vehicle Low Low Medium Taylor Environmental science, Engineering Careers related to sustainable development Interactive game about resilience Medium Medium High Quinn Computer Science Developer of educational technology, Other careers related to technology Plant watering system n/a n/a n/a Jody Computer Science Careers related to sustainable development, Other careers related to technology IoT for agriculture Low Medium High 43 3.7 Data Collection Procedures Before data collection commenced, I obtained ethical approval from BREB. The research was categorized as a study with minimal risk. In the following, I will explain the data collection procedures alongside the COVID-19 protocols and confidentiality protocols. 3.7.1 COVID-19 Protocols To mitigate the risks related to COVID-19, when I placed advertising materials in the recruitment site’s campus, or when I met participants for material distribution and return, I employed the following COVID-19 protocols. First, I wore an N95 mask and sanitized my hands frequently. Second, I performed a self-assessment of illness before I met participants. Third, I asked participants to let me know if they were unwell before material distribution and return, so that we could reschedule the meeting. 3.7.2 Participant Recruitment and Initial Survey Recruitment started on May 25th, 2022. I posted advertisements in the recruitment site’s subreddit in Reddit and Discord channels after I obtained permissions from the administrators of these communities. I also placed posters and leaflets within the permitted areas in the recruitment site’s campus. The recruitment materials provided a hyperlink and a QR code for potential participants to access an online consent form of this research. A questionnaire for the initial survey was attached to the consent form. 3.7.3 Briefing and Material Distribution Each consenting participant was invited to participate in an individual briefing session in Zoom. In each session, I introduced the research and the COVID-19 protocols. I also scheduled a time with each participant for material distribution. During material distribution, I followed the 44 COVID-19 protocols, and gave each participant a package of maker kit and craft materials. 3.7.4 The Learning Blog To protect participants’ personal identity and information, only myself and participants who registered as a blog member could access to the blog. I also allowed participants to use the blog anonymously, and asked them to keep any personal information that other participants shared confidential. To facilitate participants’ discussion, I posted a prompt in the blog to ask them which sustainable development goal they care about the most. I also posted two project examples (See Appendix I). To decrease or delimit my influences on participants’ viewpoints about CT, I did not share my viewpoints about CT in the blog. For example, in the Micro:bits video tutorials that I recorded, I did not mention CT. Also, the external learning resources that I shared in the blog contained diverse viewpoints. These resources were provided to facilitate participants’ reflection on the meaning of CT, rather than to instill a particular perspective. 3.7.5 Zoom Workshops and Support I invited participants to Zoom workshops, and scheduled Zoom support sessions to help participants troubleshoot issues in their projects. To protect participants’ anonymity, all workshops and support sessions were conducted with a single participant only. To limit my influences on participants’ perceptions of CT, I did not mention or discuss about CT in any of the workshops or support sessions. With participants’ consent, I video-recorded each Zoom session to facilitate data analysis. Appendix K summarizes the workshops and support sessions. 3.7.6 Zoom Interview and Final Survey After participants spent one month on their projects, I contacted each participant to schedule an individual Zoom interview. The duration of each interview was about 30 to 40 45 minutes. With participants’ consent, I video-recorded each interview in Zoom. Right after the interview, I emailed participant a link to complete a final online survey. 3.7.7 Material Return and Token of Appreciation After the interview, I allowed participants to keep the maker kit for an extended period of three months, so that they could continue to work on their current projects or other projects. When I met participants for material return, I followed the same COVID-19 protocols that I used for the material distribution. After I received the maker kit, I gave twenty Canadian dollars to each participant who completed the interview as a token of appreciation. 3.7.8 Other Procedures and Data Storage To further protect participants’ anonymity, I was the only researcher in this study that was involved in the data collection. All data collected including any field notes I created throughout the study were stored in an encrypted folder in my password-protected computer. All the data collection tools, including Qualtrics, the UBC Blogs, and Zoom, were approved by BREB for data collection. After the approval of this report, a copy of the data will be stored in an encrypted USB drive in my supervisor’s office inside a locked cabinet. Then, all the research data in my computer will be deleted permanently. After five years, the data in the encrypted USB drive will be deleted. 3.8 Data Analysis The data analysis approach that I employed was “reflexive thematic analysis” (Braun & Clarke, 2019, p. 589). This method involves coding and creating themes. Coding refers to labeling a unit of qualitative data with a code, which is a concise description of an underlying concept in the data (Braun & Clarke, 2006). By comparing and contrasting codes generated in a 46 data set, qualitative researchers can then create themes based on the identified patterns from the codes to understand a phenomenon being studied (Terry & Hayfield, 2021). The goal of my analysis was to answer my research questions by creating salient themes and interrelationships of these themes based on all the data collected from the diverse instruments of this study. I used Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, Microsoft PowerPoint, and NVivo to transcribe, organize, visualize, and code the data respectively. I will explain my data analysis procedures in three parts below. 3.8.1 Reflexive Thematic Analysis Braun and Clarke (2006) explained that thematic analysis is “a method for identifying, analysing and reporting patterns (themes) within data” (p. 79, parentheses in the original). In 2018, to distinguish their analytic method with other thematic approaches, Braun, Clarke, Hayfield, and Terry renamed their approach reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2019). Terry and Hayfield (2021) pointed out that reflexive thematic analysis is “a fully qualitative and interpretative way to do analysis” (p. 9). They also cautioned that certain techniques such as “developing a coding framework, testing for coder reliability, and member checking” (p.12) are incompatible with reflexive thematic analysis. Braun and Clarke (2021) explained that the aforementioned techniques are grounded in a positivist worldview that does not align with the interpretivist orientation of reflexive thematic analysis, which assumes that truth is nonsingular and acknowledges researchers’ subjectivity. However, to improve research credibility, reflexive thematic analysis also emphasizes the importance of researcher reflexivity (Braun & Clarke, 2019). Reflexivity is the reflection that researchers perform throughout their studies, and document in their reports, to foreground the philosophical assumptions and any choices they made in their interpretations (Terry & Hayfield, 2021). 47 I employed reflexive thematic analysis as my analytic approach because it suited my research questions, which focused on deep understanding of participants’ perceptions and experiences. Also, reflexive thematic analysis was compatible with my relativist and interpretivist beliefs. Reflexive thematic analysis has six phases that can be performed recursively (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2019, 2021; Terry & Hayfield, 2021). I created Table 3 to guide my analysis during the six phases. The descriptions in the table were paraphrased from the book Essential of Thematic Analysis (Terry & Hayfield, 2021). Terry and Hayfield (2021) named the six phases as “(a) familiarization, (b) coding, (c) initial theme generation, (d) developing and reviewing themes, (e) defining and naming themes, and (f) writing the report” (p. 29). Table 3 Six Phases of Reflexive Thematic Analysis Phase Description Familiarization Comprehensively and continuously become familiar with all the data (Terry & Hayfield, 2021). Coding Divide the data set into smaller units and inductively name them with new codes or existing codes (Terry & Hayfield, 2021). Initial Theme Generation Turn existing codes into themes or merge similar codes into a theme that captures a salient conceptual idea pertinent to the research questions (Terry & Hayfield, 2021). Developing and Reviewing Themes Validate if the themes capture all important conceptual ideas in the data set, evaluate if a theme overlaps with another theme, consider the relationships between the themes, make sure the themes can answer the research questions, and go back to the previous phases to create or refine themes (Terry & Hayfield, 2021). Defining and Naming Themes Create detailed definitions and concise names for all the themes to vividly represent their underlying conceptual ideas (Terry & Hayfield, 2021). Writing the Report Write the report and revisit the previous phases when needed (Terry & Hayfield, 2021). Note. Source of the information: Essential of Thematic Analysis, written by Gareth Terry and Nikki Hayfield, published by American Psychological Association in 2021. 48 3.8.2 Data Processing Procedures In this study, participants gave their consent that any visuals and texts that participants posted in the blog can be used in the findings. Participants also gave their consent that videos recorded in the Zoom workshops, support sessions, and interviews can be transcribed, so that the transcripts can be used in the findings. To use the visual data in the images and videos that participants created in the blog for thematic analysis, the visual data needed to be textualized. For each of the images and videos that participants posted in the blog, I created a description to summarize the visual content of the raw data. For the videos recorded in Zoom interviews, I performed verbatim transcription for each of them. I also conducted minor editing for each transcript to enhance clarity based on the transcription guidelines in Appendix L. For each of the Zoom workshops and support sessions, I focused on the dialogues between the participant and myself, and transcribed them using the same transcription guidelines that I used for Zoom interviews. After the transcripts were finalized, the Zoom recordings were deleted. After the data were all textualized and transcribed, I read all the textual data multiple times to locate and edit any data that might expose participants’ identities. For example, I replaced “my wife” or “my husband” with “[my partner]” to remove the gender information. The data processing procedures also allowed me to become familiar with the data set before coding. 3.8.3 Coding Data and Creating Themes I imported all data from the surveys, blog posts, workshops, support sessions, and interviews into NVivo for coding. For the initial coding, I focused on the interview data because they contained the richest information about participants’ perceptions and experiences. I coded each interview transcript line-by-line initially. I also explored coding paragraph-by-paragraph 49 and question-by-question. By exploring different sizes of the unit of analysis, it gave me the opportunity to become more and more conscious of both the specific details and the broader contexts that participants’ perceptions and experiences consisted of. In the next phase, I looked for patterns within a case and across all the cases to formulate themes. I created a theme either by merging similar codes or by promoting a code (Terry & Hayfield, 2021). Data from different sources were compared and contrasted to improve the analysis. This technique is known as source triangulation (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Merriam, 1998). I paid attention to the codes that were common across all interviews, and also the codes that were distinct in a single interview. Furthermore, I also coded data from surveys, blog posts, workshops, and support sessions, and then use the resulting codes to refine the themes. This technique is known as method triangulation (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Merriam, 1998). In the last phase of the analysis, I aimed at renaming the themes by choosing names that could represent the salient meaning in each theme, which Braun and Clarke (2019) described as the “patterns of shared meaning” (p. 593). I also created “thematic maps” (Terry & Hayfield, 2021, p. 53) to visualize the interrelationships of the themes. As a result, I reorganized 21 tentative themes that I created into nine themes and 12 subthemes. Throughout the analysis, I took time for reflection in-between different iterations. I also referred to my field notes and analytic notes for reflection. In addition, I shared my analysis with my supervisor frequently to get feedback. 3.9 Trustworthiness and Reflexivity Trustworthiness of an inquiry is about whether a researcher can convince others to believe and value the research findings (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Lincoln and Guba (1985) 50 explained that trustworthiness in qualitative research has four pillars, which include “credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability” (p. 328). A qualitative research study is credible if it can provide sufficient evidence to show that the research findings represent participants’ perceived realities (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Merriam, 1998). In my inquiry, participants’ perceived realities consisted of their perceptions and lived experiences in relation to physical computing and CT education. I employed four methods to improve the credibility of this study. The first three methods include what Lincoln and Guba (1985) described as “prolonged engagement, persistent observation, and triangulation” (p. 301). First, prolonged engagement refers to an adequate amount of time that researchers spend with participants to understand the research context, identify false information, and establish rapport (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). I designed many activities throughout this study so that I could frequently engage with participants before the interviews. The activities included briefing sessions, workshops, support sessions, email conversations, and blog post discussions. These activities allowed myself and the participants to have sufficient time to become familiar with the remote learning environment, address any miscommunication, and build trust. Second, the activities also enabled me to continuously observe participants’ maker-centered and remote learning experiences, so that I could pay attention to the details of their diverse perceptions and experiences. Third, by including multiple cases and diverse data collection instruments in this study, I also improved the credibility of the research study with both source triangulation and method triangulation (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Merriam, 1998). Fourth, I used recorded videos to facilitate my transcription processes, so that I could improve the accuracy of the transcripts. With the recorded videos, I could repeatedly watch all of the Zoom workshops, support sessions, and interviews. This 51 allowed me to become more familiar with the data before the data analysis procedure. It also improved the quality and credibility of my interpretations. Transferability of qualitative research refers to the potential that someone can apply the research findings in a similar situation (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). According to Lincoln and Guba (1985), transferability is not grounded in the traditional sense of generalization in quantitative research, but is in relation to what Stake (1995) referred as “naturalistic generalization” (p. 126), which is about how peoples generalize in their daily lives (Stake, 1995). Merriam (1998) explained that “drawing on tacit knowledge, intuition, and personal experience, people look for patterns that explain their own experience as well as events in the world around them” (p. 211). Lincoln and Guba (1985) argued that transferability of research can be improved with the use of “thick description” (p. 316) and “purposeful sampling” (p. 316). The in-depth description of the phenomenon in a qualitative study is known as thick description (Merriam, 1998). In the findings, I explained the created themes in detail to describe participants’ diverse perspectives and lived experiences in detail. The in-depth description acted as the thick descriptions of this study. I also purposefully sampled participants with diverse backgrounds (See Section 3.6), and documented the different ways that they engaged in the same maker activity. Readers can use the thick descriptions and informative patterns that I provided in this report for naturalistic generalization. In quantitative research, consistency refers to how likely the research results can be replicated (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). However, in qualitative research, it is impossible to exactly replicate a study like a controlled experiment (Merriam, 1998). Qualitative inquirers study phenomenon that happens in natural environments, which can contain substantial amount of unknown and uncontrollable variables (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Lincoln and Guba (1985) argued 52 that qualitative research should address dependability rather than replicability because “one can never cross the same stream twice” (p. 299, emphasis in the original). Merriam (1998) explained that dependability is about how much a study’s “results are consistent with the data collected” (p. 206), and it is not about whether future studies will have the same findings. According to Merriam (1998), an “audit trail” (p. 207) and triangulation are effective ways to improve research dependability. An audit trail is the detailed information that researchers provided for others to audit the trustworthiness of research (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Merriam, 1998). To make this inquiry more dependable, I documented in detail the journey or trail that I went through, which included my data collection and analytic processes. I also triangulated my data sources and collection methods with multiple cases and diverse instruments to improve the dependability of this study. To enhance the confirmability of an inquiry, researchers should show that the findings are grounded in the collected data (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Cope (2014) explained that researchers should provide evidence to confirm that “the data represent the participants’ responses and not the researcher’s biases” (p. 89). In other words, researchers can provide evidence of reflexivity to enhance the confirmability of research. I employed many procedures to improve both the reflexivity and confirmability of this study. In this chapter, I have explained my researcher positionality and documented the protocols that I employed to reduce my influence on participants’ viewpoints in the data collection and analysis procedures (See Section 3.7 and 3.8). I also explained my findings with the use of exact words and phrases that participants used to articulate their viewpoints (See Chapter 4). Moreover, I wrote reflexive field notes and memos to document my thoughts in the data collection and analysis processes. 53 3.10 Limitations and Delimitations There were several limitations of this study. First, participation in the blog was lower than I expected. Interactions among participants in the blog were very limited. Also, not every participant had used blog posts to document their projects. Among the blog posts, only one of the participants had included the detailed descriptions that documented all the different stages of the project. Second, although there are many different tools and forms of physical computing, the research findings were only based on the Micro:bit maker activity that participants engaged with in this study. Third, this research study only included the viewpoints of prospective educators who were interested in the study’s maker activity. Prospective educators who were not interested in the activity could not be sampled because they could have ignored the recruitment advertisements. Another limitation of this study was its small sample size. This research also had several delimitations. First, I designed the research as a qualitative and exploratory case study that did not require a large sample size. According to Terry and Hayfield (2021), it is adequate to have six to 10 participants in a qualitative research study that collects data through interviews. Thus, the resulting six cases that this study successfully sampled were within the expected and acceptable range. Second, I designed the maker activity as a remotely facilitated activity for two reasons. The first reason was to reduce the potential health risks that could arise due to possible COVID-19 exposure. The second reason was to turn the limitations caused by the pandemic into an opportunity to understand participants’ remote learning experiences with physical computing. This has also been an under-researched topic. Third, I chose Micro:bits as the tool in this study because I was more familiar with Micro:bits than other physical computing technology. With a maker activity that centered around Micro:bits, I could provide better support to participants during this study with the use of my 54 previous experience as a makerspace instructor. The opportunities for me to provide support to participants also allowed me to have prolonged engagement with participants that could improve the quality of this research. 3.11 Chapter Summary In this chapter, I have explained the details of the qualitative and exploratory case study that I employed to answer my research questions. Also, I have discussed the data collection and analysis processes that I went through alongside the underlying rationales. In the next chapter, I will present the findings of this research. 55 Chapter 4: Findings 4.1 Chapter Overview In the previous chapter, I have explained that I chose reflexive thematic analysis as my data analysis approach (Braun & Clarke, 2019). I have also described the data collection and analysis procedures. In this chapter, I will report the research findings in three sections, one section for each of the research questions (See Sections 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4). I will first describe the themes and subthemes that I created for each research question. Then, I will define and explain each theme or subtheme in detail. Key data extracts or codes that each theme or subtheme is grounded in will be provided. The data extracts include the direct quotes of participants’ interview responses, dialogues in the workshops or support sessions, data collected in participants’ blog posts, and responses in the initial and final surveys. Table 4 and Table 5 provide an overview of the findings. There are nine themes and 12 subthemes. Note that some of the themes do not have any subthemes as shown in Table 4. Table 4 Overview of the Themes Research Question Themes No. of Subtheme Q1 Section 4.2: What do prospective educators think CT means? Section 4.2.1 – CT is everywhere but hidden in daily life Section 4.2.2 – CT is the logical and systematic process used to solve problems Section 4.2.3 – CT can put computational resources in action n/a n/a n/a Q2 Section 4.3: What do prospective educators perceive as the strategies to teach CT with Micro:bits? Section 4.3.1 – The cognitive pathways that nurture logical thinkers Section 4.3.2 – The affective pathways that nurture creative problem solvers 3 3 Q3 Section 4.4: What do prospective educators’ learning experiences with Micro:bits look like? Section 4.4.1 – Imagine with computing tools Section 4.4.2 – Empathize by making Section 4.4.3 – Persevere by tinkering Section 4.4.4 – Intangible barriers n/a n/a 3 3 56 Table 5 Overview of the Subthemes Themes Subthemes Section 4.3.1: The cognitive pathways that nurture logical thinkers Section 4.3.1.1 – Apply mathematics to create logical systems Section 4.3.1.2 – Design precise automations to shape the world Section 4.3.1.3 – Create impartial machines to complement human weaknesses Section 4.3.2: The affective pathways that nurture creative problem solvers Section 4.3.2.1 – Enjoy problem-solving with all your heart Section 4.3.2.2 – Become creative producers Section 4.3.2.3 – Share the joy of computing with others Section 4.4.3: Persevere by tinkering Section 4.4.3.1 – Play with the unknown Section 4.4.3.2 – Sense the imperceptible Section 4.4.3.3 – Improvise with a vision Section 4.4.4: Intangible barriers Section 4.4.4.1 – Superficial social experience Section 4.4.4.2 – Agency overload Section 4.4.4.3 – Communication breakdown 4.2 Research Question Q1 The first research question is Q1: What do prospective educators think CT means? To answer this research question, I created three themes in the data analysis (See Table 6). Table 6 Research Question Q1 - Themes and Subthemes Research Question Themes Section 4.2: Q1: What do prospective educators think CT means? Section 4.2.1 – CT is everywhere but hidden in daily life Section 4.2.2 – CT is the logical and systematic process used to solve problems Section 4.2.3 – CT can put computational resources in action 57 In the following subsections, I will define and explain each theme of the first research question with the identified patterns in the data set. 4.2.1 CT is Everywhere but Hidden in Daily Life This theme “CT is everywhere but hidden in daily life” represents two related statements made by participants. The first statement is that CT is prevalent in everyday life. The second statement is that many people are not aware of the use of CT in their daily lives despite CT’s prevalence. The following are some data extracts in the interviews upon which this theme is grounded. When I asked participants to give me examples of CT, Ellis said, “I think it is integrated in so many things.” Similarly, Jody said, “Computational thinking is sort of everywhere.” Jody further expressed the following: It [CT] is used in pretty much anything online … It is just hidden … You know the average user doesn’t have to understand but it still exists in the background. Likewise, Quinn said, “Computational thinking … I would say every day most people kind of do it on autopilot.” Ellis, Jody, and Quinn all have an academic background in computer science. Kelsey, who studies chemistry and was a teacher before, responded similarly. Kelsey said, “There are little things that we never think about, but they [CT] are there.” Taylor, who has an academic interest in both environmental science and engineering, provided an example of the little things that Kelsey mentioned. Taylor said that CT is often used “to manipulate the working of robots to get things done as simple as wiping a windshield.” Riley, who studies education and would like to become a teacher, stated that CT is used everywhere to solve problems that people encounter 58 in daily life. Riley gave the following two examples: (a) CT can be used to find the fastest way to commute, and (b) CT can be used to understand the best conditions to take care of a plant. This theme is also grounded in a response from the initial online survey. In the survey, the tenth question was an open-ended question that inquired about a participant’s prior knowledge of CT. Kelsey answered, “I think I know only what I need for my career.” The codes that I created for Kelsey’s response are “People use CT at work every day” and “People are unaware of some CT.” These codes were combined in the thematic analysis into this theme. 4.2.2 CT is the Logical and Systematic Process Used to Solve Problems This theme “CT is the logical and systematic process used to solve problems” represents the thought process and purpose of CT. Many participants expressed that the thought process of CT is logical and systematic, and the purpose of CT is to solve problems. For example, Quinn stated that people can use CT in their job as follows: If they [people] want to problem solve or they are dealing with some obstacles in their job, they usually have a thought process, have a system where they just think out the best solution regarding their environment … Those are some ways of computational thinking. The following are some other data extracts upon which this theme is grounded: • People use computational thinking to solve little things that make life easier (Kelsey). • [CT] let us solve our problems step by step (Riley). • Computational thinking is really just about being sequential with the way we think about things (Ellis). • [CT is the] process where we break down a problem into very simple core steps and find a logical solution (Quinn). 59 • It [CT] is a very systematic way of learning (Taylor). • [CT is about] logically build skills in computational sense (Jody). 4.2.3 CT Can Put Computational Resources in Action This theme “CT can put computational resources in action” represents the relationship between CT and computing. Participants mentioned that CT can be used to manipulate computational resources to complete a task. Computational resources include both software and hardware in computing. For example, Taylor expressed the relationship between CT and robotics as follows: How does that wiper be so smart? … We didn’t do anything. So computational thinking would be getting into the mind of the robot to get things work and … how we can manipulate it. Furthermore, Kelsey said, “Computational thinking is … how you apply the fundamental of computational development, like coding or Micro:bit … to target a problem and to solve it using those resources.” Similarly, Quinn and Riley also said that CT can be used alongside Micro:bits to solve problems. Other data extracts that relate to this theme include “It [CT] is like the logic behind computers” (Jody) and “It [CT] is like telling a computer how to do a certain task” (Ellis). 4.2.4 Summary of the Findings for the First Research Question In this section, I have reported the findings of three themes for the first research question Q1: What do prospective educators think CT means? In Chapter 5, I will provide and discuss an operational definition of CT that I synthesized from the findings. I will also compare and contrast the operational definition with other definitions of CT in the literature. 60 In the next section, I will report the themes and subthemes for the second research question. 4.3 Research Question Q2 The second research question is Q2: What do prospective educators perceive as the strategies to teach CT with Micro:bits? To answer this research question, I created two themes and six subthemes from the identified patterns in the data set (See Table 7). Table 7 Research Question Q2 - Themes and Subthemes Research Question Themes Subthemes Section 4.3: Q2: What do prospective educators perceive as the strategies to teach CT with Micro:bits? Section 4.3.1: The cognitive pathways that nurture logical thinkers Section 4.3.1.1 – Apply mathematics to create logical systems Section 4.3.1.2 – Design precise automations to shape the world Section 4.3.1.3 – Create impartial machines to complement human weaknesses Section 4.3.2: The affective pathways that nurture creative problem solvers Section 4.3.2.1 – Enjoy problem-solving with all your heart Section 4.3.2.2 – Become creative producers Section 4.3.2.3 – Share the joy of computing with others The first theme of the second research question is “The cognitive pathways that nurture logical thinkers.” This theme emphasizes the cognitive development aspects in CT education. It has three subthemes: • Apply mathematics to create logical systems. • Design precise automations to shape the world. • Create impartial machines to complement human weaknesses. The second theme of the second research question is “The affective pathways that nurture 61 creative problem solvers.” This theme stresses the affective development aspects in CT education. It has three subthemes: • Enjoy problem-solving with all your heart. • Become creative producers. • Share the joy of computing with others. The six subthemes represent the variations within the cognitive and affective strategies. In the following subsections, I will define and explain each theme and subtheme of the second research question. 4.3.1 The Cognitive Pathways that Nurture Logical Thinkers This theme “The cognitive pathways that nurture logical thinkers” represents the strategies that emphasize the cognitive development aspects in CT education. Participants mentioned that using Micro:bits to teach CT can nurture a learner’s logical mindset. For example, when I asked participants how they will teach young learners CT, Quinn said that “we could show them with the Micro:bit.” Quinn also stated that they would ask students “How do you think if you were to [instruct] a robot or give a computer instructions?” Quinn went on to state that the question could help students “get into the mindset of thinking about things in a more logical way.” This theme is also grounded in the code “Intelligence and cognition.” Data extracts of this code include “[Micro:bit is a] programmable physical device for clever manipulation” (Taylor) and “[A Micro:bit] can be made like a brain of the system” (Taylor). Also, Jody stated that learners could face a steep learning curve when they use Micro:bits as a learning tool: If you don’t know too much logic, you can’t really go past like making lights light up … 62 If you can’t really understand that logic, more advanced logic is going to get very, very tough to build. I created the code “Logical pathway” for the above data, which this theme is based on. 4.3.1.1 Apply Mathematics to Create Logical Systems. This subtheme “Apply mathematics to create logical systems” represents a strategy that emphasizes the connection between CT and mathematics. When I asked Jody about the strategy of teaching young learners CT, Jody expressed the following: A computer is sort of like a logical system … A third grader probably knows up to multiplication and addition … multiplication and addition is sort of a way to build a foundation for the logic that would eventually lead to these computers … introducing the idea that math is linked to computers would be a very useful thing to teach. This subtheme is also grounded in the following data extracts: • Computational thinking is sort of like how computers register data ... you could get into the math behind that (Jody). • The building blocks behind those is like basic math (Jody). • I know high level math uses logic … that also helps build computer science (Jody). • The zeros and ones that build up those logic gates (Jody). • Design algorithms and solutions to problems … through a foundational knowledge in discrete mathematics (Ellis). Jody also said that teaching CT “would also garner an appreciation for math, which is something that is definitely needed.” Jody expressed the following: I know a lot of people [believe] you don’t really need math in real life. That is something 63 very frustrating to me because as a computer scientist, we can definitely see the applications of that all over the place and how useful it is. Like everything we have and used is built on measurements or logic or something else, right? Jody’s project was about measuring environmental data on a large scale for farmers to reduce water usage and improve yield (See Figure J5 in Appendix J). I coded Jody’s blog post as “Make better decisions with big data and statistics.” 4.3.1.2 Design Precise Automations to Shape the World. This subtheme “Design precise automations to shape the world” represents a strategy that focuses on breaking down a complicated task into specific steps, and building automations that can overcome environmental constraints. For example, Ellis would explain CT to young learners by stating the following: It [CT] is like writing a recipe for the computer to follow because computers are usually very stupid and you have to tell computers exactly what to do … you have to be very, very specific. Quinn’s responses asked students to pay attention to “real life constraints” and build “a small robot that gets the job done.” Similarly, Kelsey prototyped an autonomous vehicle for transporting food to a harsh environment. Quinn, Ellis, and Riley each created a different automatic plant watering system. Quinn’s automatic watering system could deliver “100 milliliters of water for about 2 seconds” and display three moisture levels. I coded the above data extract as “Precise automation.” Quinn’s blog post can be found in Figure J1 in Appendix J. This subtheme is also grounded in the following data extracts: • [My project] automatically waters my plant when the soil is dry (Ellis). • [A system that can] automate the amount of water that happens in farms (Jody). 64 • If it starts to rain, it will automatically start wiping the window (Taylor). • I would love to work in the automation industry as it is a very important field in terms of innovation (Quinn). 4.3.1.3 Create Impartial Machines to Complement Human Weaknesses. This subtheme “Create impartial machines to complement human weaknesses” represents a strategy that relates to the strength of machines and human weaknesses. The strength of machines is the ability to create the same output every time a specific input is present. Human weaknesses include mental and physical weaknesses. For example, Taylor created a game called “Frustration.” The game requires a player to hold a wire, move the wire from a starting point to an ending point in a maze, and avoid touching the maze with the wire. Taylor said that the game was designed to understand people’s “mental resilience against challenge” and stated that “a similar thing is being done by space agencies to recruit astronauts.” Taylor programmed a Micro:bit to count how many mistakes a player made before the challenge is completed. Taylor expressed the following in the interview: I realized … if the same thing was done by … a person watching me doing that thing … [The person] might have counted, [or] might not have counted. But having that Micro:bit counting every time even if it is a small mistake … having those Micro:bits with us or simple machines like that … is very impartial. Taylor also suggested some other projects that students might explore, such as developing systems that help people open doors or garbage bins without touching them during the pandemic. This subtheme is also grounded in the following data extracts: • I often forget to water my plants (Quinn). • This system will save my plant dying from neglect (Quinn). 65 • [A] system which would ideally handle the water much better than the people who … were not educated to know that we are using too much water (Jody). • The first idea I had was why don’t I just water my plants? Because usually I don’t water my plant myself. I am quite lazy (Ellis). • Sometimes I go on vacation … my plants in home need to be watered (Riley). • With something [an autonomous vehicle] that moves itself instead of with a driver … [we can] send resources to the people in difficult locations (Kelsey). 4.3.2 The Affective Pathways that Nurture Creative Problem Solvers This theme “The affective pathways that nurture creative problem solvers” represents the strategies that emphasize the affective development aspects in CT education. Participants mentioned that Micro:bits can provide opportunities for learners to apply CT in problem-solving. For example, Kelsey said the following: One of the things about computational thinking is to be able to solve a problem. But how would you do it if you don’t have anything to actually do something about it? So, the Micro:bit makes you be able to have something to work on a prototype to develop the bigger ideas [to solve a problem]. Participants also mentioned the emotional aspects that they would consider to support young learners in developing CT with Micro:bits. For instance, Quinn said that it is important to “help students get excited about solving problems with computational thinking.” Jody stated that using Micro:bits in the classrooms can “promote other things such as the love for coding.” Furthermore, Riley said, “The first time that this kit [Micro:bit maker kit] started watering my plant … I was feeling … How can I say that? I think that I did a big thing.” 66 This theme is also grounded in the following data extracts: • Creativity is very important in computational thinking (Riley). • Micro:bit does help us integrate computational thinking … which [provides] a low barrier to entry and more time to focus on creative applications (Quinn). • Get the kids to be excited about using the Micro:bit (Ellis). • That [Taylor’s project] builds my confidence in my learning with robots and being comfortable around (Taylor). 4.3.2.1 Enjoy Problem-Solving with All Your Heart. This subtheme “Enjoy problem-solving with all your heart” represents a strategy that emphasizes the joy of problem-solving. Ellis said, “When it comes to learning, as a kid I always used to be very passionate.” This passion towards learning changed when Ellis got older. Ellis said, “As I have got older and older, it is harder for me to get excited about [learning] … unless … the topic [is] really big.” However, in the blog post that Ellis created, Ellis expressed the following: I am very grateful to have been part of this project. I started coding more in my own free time and I feel more passionate and excited about learning new things and experimenting. In the interview, Ellis shared the following description about the excitement that Ellis felt in the learning experience with Micro:bits: I feel [that] it is nice doing simple tasks … I am having fun solving a problem … I am just watering my plants, which is not a big problem on the grand scheme of things, but I feel excited and I have fun when things start working. I think that there is a big satisfaction when hardware components are starting to move around and they are doing what you wanted to do. 67 Ellis also mentioned the “need to give [children] the freedom to experiment and learn things” and stated that “we should not really judge them [children] based on what they create.” Ellis expressed the following: If you force them [children] to … follow some projects that you as a teacher came up with [and] everyone has to do exactly what [you] did. I think [children] would be discouraged. Ellis also stated the relationship between problem-solving and programming. Ellis said, “What exactly is programming? … It is actually more about how you think about solving problems.” In the blog, Ellis shared an image of a program and described the problem that Ellis wanted to solve (See Figure J3 and J4 in Appendix J). The following are other data extracts upon which this subtheme is grounded: • It was really fun to look around for different things I could use for my project (Ellis). • Initially, I felt that just using block-level code was amateurish … However, once I actually used it, I realized that it was a really fun way to program (Ellis). • I guess the moral of the story is to just try enjoying coding (Ellis). • I am interested in using computer science to come up with new projects and ideas that can help people (Ellis). 4.3.2.2 Become Creative Producers. This subtheme “Become creative producers” represents a strategy that emphasizes the active role that anyone can play to develop creative solutions for real-life problems. A data extract of this subtheme is a short summary that Riley wrote in the final survey about the learning experience with Micro:bits. Riley wrote, “I find out how I can find my own solution for my everyday problems.” In the interview, Riley said, 68 “Before this [Riley’s project], I think that I am a person that have no ability to use electronical devices.” Riley stated, “After this project, I changed my mind [about Riley’s ability to use electronical devices]” Riley also expressed the following in the interview: I thought that they [devices like Micro:bits] are just usable in large projects and I did not know that every person can use it at home and program it and set it for his or her purpose. In the interview, Riley provided the following response about how Riley would explain CT to young learners: I can explain it as a way of solving problems that we first consider what the problem is. And then, we use our previous knowledge, the opportunity that we have, and everything that we have now to solve the problem. Everyone can use their own thinking … and the instruments they have to solve the problem. Both Riley and Ellis stated that Micro:bits allow learners to become more creative in problem-solving. If Micro:bits were used in a classroom, Ellis would challenge students by asking, “Here are all the resources that you have, what can you come up with to solve this problem?” Furthermore, Quinn expressed the following: When we get older, we kind of get blind … [to problems] in our life especially like any of those sustainable development goals. They [young learners] could start acting on it [sustainability issues] early on, start seeing patterns that we might not see, and start coming up with creative solutions. 69 4.3.2.3 Share the Joy of Computing with Others. This subtheme “Share the joy of computing with others” represents a strategy that emphasizes computing as an enjoyable experience that people can participate and share with others. For example, Kelsey said the following in the interview: That [Micro:bit] was really interesting for me to learn … It is really playful. It is easy to use and to learn and to teach others. I even teach my [partner] a little bit about it and [my partner] really gets interested in it. We have been playing together. Kelsey was a teacher and would like to be a teacher again. Kelsey told some friends, who are teachers, about this study and Micro:bits. Kelsey stated, “They [the teachers] will start trying to use it [Micro:bit] in the classroom.” Kelsey also expressed the following about why Kelsey talked about Micro:bits with Kelsey’s friends: I have heard about it [Micro:bit], but I never actually had it to be able to play with [it] … After I did it and I have fun with it … I want other people to be able to do this because it will make them as happy as I am. Kelsey also described Micro:bits as “new things that we can use in classrooms.” For example, Kelsey mentioned that students can participate in making a plant watering system in a biology class. Kelsey also stated that Micro:bits can provide more opportunities for students to participate in coding. Kelsey said, “There is a lot of people that don’t go into coding because they think it is such a weird thing that … [they] could never do.” Kelsey stated that Micro:bits can make more people realize that coding is “not that hard.” This subtheme is also grounded in the following data extracts: • I also had a friend who also did the project too. And we kind of worked on it together. 70 I thought that was also pretty enjoyable (Jody). • Learning Micro:bit was a fun and enjoyable experience (Jody). • It [using a Micro:bit] is very enjoyable (Riley). • Computational thinking is just a reflection of logical mind and still having fun with different projects (Taylor). • I would suggest maybe people can team up … making projects (Taylor). 4.3.3 Summary of the Findings for the Second Research Question In this section, I have reported the findings of two themes and six subthemes for the second research question Q2: What do prospective educators perceive as the strategies to teach CT with Micro:bits? In Chapter 5, based on the findings, I will discuss how physical computing can support learners in developing CT through the cognitive pathways and affective pathways. I will also compare and contrast the pathways with the cognitive, situated, and critical framings of CT education that Kafai et al. (2020) discussed. In the next section, I will report the themes and subthemes for the third research question. 4.4 Research Question Q3 The third research question is Q3: What do prospective educators’ learning experiences with Micro:bits look like? I created four themes and six subthemes for this research question (See Table 8). 71 Table 8 Research Question Q3 - Themes and Subthemes Research Question Themes Subthemes Section 4.4: Q3: What do prospective educators’ learning experiences with Micro:bits look like? Section 4.4.1: Imagine with computing tools n/a Section 4.4.2: Empathize by making n/a Section 4.4.3: Persevere by tinkering Section 4.4.3.1 – Play with the unknown Section 4.4.3.2 – Sense the imperceptible Section 4.4.3.3 – Improvise with a vision Section 4.4.4: Intangible barriers Section 4.4.4.1 – Superficial social experience Section 4.4.4.2 – Agency overload Section 4.4.4.3 – Communication breakdown “Imagine with computing tools” is the first theme of the third research question. This theme is grounded in how participants came up with their project ideas. “Empathize by making” is the second theme of the third research question. This theme is grounded in how participants turned empathy into action. “Persevere by tinkering” is the third theme of the third research question. This theme is grounded in the data extracts that relate to participants’ prolonged self-learning and their hands-on experiences with Micro:bits. This theme has three subthemes, which are grounded in participants’ tinkering processes: • Play with the unknown • Sense the imperceptible • Improvise with a vision 72 “Intangible barriers” is the fourth theme of the third research question. This theme is about the major challenges that participants faced in their remote learning experiences. This theme has three subthemes, which are grounded in three identified patterns in the data set. • Superficial social experience • Agency overload • Communication breakdown In the following subsections, each theme and subtheme of the third research question will be defined and explained. 4.4.1 Imagine with Computing Tools This theme “Imagine with computing tools” represents the process in which participants constructed abstract ideas by considering what could be made with the available computing tools. For example, in a workshop that I conducted with Ellis, Ellis mentioned the following about how they came up with the idea to create a plant watering system: Immediately when I saw the Micro:bit and I saw the moisture sensor [and] the water pump … I thought, OK, maybe you can do something [for] that kind of project [plant watering system] … something that [relates to] agriculture or just simple gardening. In the interview, Ellis stated, “If I had other hardware components, I would a hundred percent try to do something else.” Similarly, Quinn, who made a plant watering system in this study, mentioned another project idea that Quinn could work on if I provided an air quality sensor in the maker kit. Quinn described the project idea as a “micro biome project” that has a feedback and control system to monitor environmental conditions like air and soil quality. Quinn said that the project could explore how we could sustain life “out of our planet.” Quinn said that 73 an application example is to grow plants on Mars. Furthermore, when participants talked about their project ideas, they also mentioned their interactions with the computing tools provided in this study. For instance, Kelsey created an autonomous car and said, “When I start playing a little bit with the Micro:bit, I realized the sensor will be really cool to [make] a little car.” (See Figure J6 and J7 in Appendix J). Other related data extracts include “I have a couple of ideas … one of them is developing just [with] the water sensor for plants” (Taylor) and “I think about programming the Micro:bit to find the best spot in my home to keep my plants” (Riley). 4.4.2 Empathize by Making This theme “Empathize by making” represents the process in which participants turned empathy into action by making something for others, including any things, places, or people that participants cared about. For instance, when I asked participants about what problems their projects could solve, Jody mentioned a situation in Jody’s grandfather’s land: They [people] don’t properly measure the water they use … That leads to having to pump out water from the groundwater supply … They use that to a point where it starts desertification ... I have seen this personally … [It] happens to my grandfather’s land. In the blog, Ellis mentioned a plant that Ellis cared about. Ellis wrote, “I recently got a blueberry plant but I felt that it was being exposed to the sun too harshly.” In the interview, Ellis said, “I can’t really change the light myself … so I have used the servo [servo motor] to create a shade” Similarly, Riley stated that the purpose of Riley’s project was to protect some plants from dying. Also, Kelsey created the autonomous car because “there are some really hard places to get [to] where they [people] need more help or they need more resources.” Taylor’s project was 74 about exploring the topic of mental resilience. Taylor said that supporting people in developing mental resilience is important for the “times right now” when the “pandemic is ongoing.” The following are some other data extracts that relate to participants’ projects or what participants cared about: • Learning more about how computing can be applied to different fields such as in health [health care] (Ellis). • [I am] someone who has seen climate change impact their families’ lives in numerous ways (Jody) • When people don’t have enough to eat it is impossible for them to have a quality life (Kelsey). • Clean energy, no poverty, and no hunger … those three [sustainable development goals] really resonated with me (Ellis). 4.4.3 Persevere by Tinkering. This theme “Persevere by tinkering” represents how participants overcame the obstacles in their hands-on learning experiences and sustained their learning effort. Many participants stated that they enjoyed the learning experiences in this study, however, they also stated that they felt frustrated sometimes. For instance, Jody expressed the following: I really enjoyed playing around with all the different materials we got … I disliked … the amount of time I had to spend just trying to figure out [how to solve] small problems … That was pretty frustrating. One of the small problems that Jody faced concerned a variable that Jody used in the IoT web application provided in this study. In the Zoom support session that I conducted to 75 troubleshoot this issue, Jody said, “I spent like almost … four hours … trying to figure out that variable issue … only to realize that you just have to name them the same.” Kelsey also mentioned a challenge about programming. Kelsey said, “Sometimes it [Kelsey’s program] was not working as [what] I was planning.” Besides programming challenges, participants also faced physical challenges. For example, Ellis mounted an automatic shade on a window. Ellis stated, “Definitely the servo [servo motor] mechanism is the hardest one, because just mounting it on this glass [window] has been a challenge.” Taylor stated that the “hands-on tinkering” with Micro:bits was an enjoyable learning process. Taylor stated that instead of reading a textbook about Micro:bits, Taylor preferred to tinker with Micro:bits in a project. Taylor summarized the learning experience and said, “I felt excited and I felt a bit of frustration … [In] the end, it was a very, very wonderful experience.” This theme is also grounded in the following data extracts: • I would have this idea, and I would spend quite a bit of time … trying to make it happen (Ellis). • I kept trying to experiment with what I could use the two buttons for (Ellis). • I like … the freedom that you have given for the participants to explore (Quinn). • It is really interesting to be able to put things into order and just make it happen (Kelsey). • At first it was very challenging (Riley). • It was my first time but I enjoy it and I like to finish it [Riley’s project] (Riley). • I did a big thing ... We try to make something … and then we achieve it. I was so happy that I did it (Riley). 76 4.4.3.1 Play with the Unknown. This subtheme “Play with the unknown” represents the playful actions that participants employed to learn something new. All participants in this study did not have any prior hands-on experience with Micro:bits. Participants used the word “play” to describe their interactions with Micro:bits. For instance, Quinn stated that anyone can “play around with” Micro:bits to “get into the computing thought process.” Quinn also said, “I had fun playing around with the simple attachments [components in the maker kit].” Similarly, Jody said, “It is cool … to play around with hardware.” Kelsey described the Micro:bit maker kit as “a new toy” to Kelsey. Kelsey said that the maker kit is small, so people can bring it to different places easily. Kelsey stated, “It is like playing [with a toy] … [You] can just take it [the maker kit] with you wherever you want to just play with it.” Participants also stated that playing can facilitate learning. Jody stated that “being able to play with something with your own hands and figuring stuff out on your own” is a learning experience that “kids would definitely benefit from.” Jody also said that “a very valuable way to teach people” is to allow learners to play. Taylor stated that allowing students to “play real-life games would be a fun way” to facilitate learning. Taylor said that they would ask students to build small robots in teams, and then use the robots to play a tag game. Similarly, Riley suggested, “Students can use these kits [the maker kits] … [to] design some toys.” 4.4.3.2 Sense the Imperceptible. This subtheme “Sense the imperceptible” represents the feedback mechanism involved in physical computing that allowed participants to use all their sensory organs to learn. It also represents the sensors involved in physical computing that allowed participants to perceive information that they normally cannot perceive. Taylor stated that Micro:bits can allow people to (a) receive instant feedback about the programs that they wrote, and (b) perceive what the sensors in Micro:bits see and touch. Taylor 77 also stated that Micro:bits can help children learn programming because the physical interface of Micro:bits allow children to see things that “they are not able to see” in their programs. Taylor stated, “It is that physical interface, [acting] like a bridge, which helps them [children] see.” Similarly, Quinn also stated that “a real-life physical object” can provide feedback about whether a program works or not. Taylor stated that learning with Micro:bits “is definitely very beneficial” to children because it involves “all their sensory organs.” There are two examples in the data set that shows how learners involve multiple sensory organs in their interactions with Micro:bits. In a workshop that I conducted with Riley, Riley programmed a servo motor, and I asked Riley whether it worked or not. Then, I heard the sound of a rotating servo motor, and Riley replied with a smile and said, “Oh, yes, it is.” Similarly, in another workshop, Riley immediately found that the water pump worked and said, “Oh, yes, I hear the noise.” Participants also mentioned how they used Micro:bits to make sense of the environment. For example, Jody said, “I made my project … give sensory data to an automated system.” Riley also mentioned that Micro:bits can allow people to “gather lots of data” and “make better decisions.” For example, Riley tried “collecting data about the temperature in [Riley’s] home to find out which place has more light and better temperature for [Riley’s] plants.” 4.4.3.3 Improvise with a Vision. This subtheme “Improvise with a vision” represents the adaptive actions that participants took to achieve their goals when they faced obstacles. Taylor made the following statement in the interview: Makers need to try different things … We have the vision, but we have to adapt. Similarly, Ellis said, “I learned the importance of improvising and … adapting.” Ellis 78 described an episode about how they overcame the hardware limitations of Micro:bits by applying Ellis’s computer science knowledge. Initially, Ellis programmed one of the two buttons on the Micro:bit to turn on a servo motor, and programmed the other button to turn it off. However, when Ellis added a water pump to the project, they realized that there was no more button that Ellis could use to control the water pump. Then, Ellis reprogrammed the buttons. Instead of using two buttons to control one component, Ellis programmed each button to become a toggle button that could “switch between true and false”, so that a component could be turned on and off alternatively with a single button. Ellis expressed the following about this episode: Even though I had hardware limitations … I realized that I can actually use some simple logic that I have been learning in computer science [to overcome the limitations]. I was able to see that solution quite quickly. The following are other data extracts upon which this subtheme is grounded: • I changed to the other program and that made me feel like more secure about the process (Kelsey). • [I have] been trying to think of different ways of learning and applying something (Quinn). • There are lots of solutions [for a] problem (Riley). • I realized the water source was best when it was on higher elevation than the plant (Ellis). • Most of the things I used for this project ended up being things I upcycled from my daily life (Ellis). • I wanted to … create a roof for the plant … I ended up compromising (Ellis). • I was able to create a makeshift moisture sensor (Ellis). 79 4.4.4 Intangible Barriers This theme “Intangible barriers” represents the challenges that participants faced when they learned physical computing remotely. In the interview that I conducted with Riley, Riley expressed the following comment about the major obstacles that Riley faced in this study: At first, I think that I can see you in person and you can use each part of the kit in front of me and I can see … how we can use it. But doing this project online … made it harder … If we can see each other face to face, everything would be better and less time-consuming. As you know when we learn in person, the outcome is very different from when we learn online. This theme is also grounded in the following three subthemes. 4.4.4.1 Superficial Social Experience. This subtheme “Superficial social experience” represents the limited interaction between participants in their remote learning experiences. Among the six cases that I sampled in this study, only four participants wrote about their projects in the blog, and each participant only created one blog post. Also, only one participant replied to another participant’s blog post (See Figure J2 in Appendix J). Furthermore, there was no participant who replied to a prompt that I posted in the blog. The prompt asked participants to write something about a sustainability issue that participants cared about. Furthermore, many participants mentioned the lack of in-person social experiences in this study, and suggested it could be an area that this study could improve upon. For example, Jody expressed the following: If you are able to talk to them [other participants], especially in real life, and bounce ideas off each other, I think that was something I enjoyed personally. And I think it would be a 80 good addition to … future projects. Similarly, Taylor suggested that if participants could team up to work on a project together, participants might “find something which they can’t [complete] individually, but [can complete] as a group.” This subtheme is also grounded in the following data extracts: • You could get everyone involved … meet each other and … socialize (Jody). • They will have a buddy (Jody). • Maybe having an icebreaker to get people to know each other (Jody). • When they are building their projects, they could … have an enjoyable social experience as well (Jody). 4.4.4.2 Agency Overload. This subtheme “Agency overload” represents a phenomenon that although participants appreciated the freedom provided in this study, they also expressed frustration that related to their freedom. For example, one of the first obstacles participants faced was to decide what projects they should work on. Participants could select any sustainability issues that they cared about, and develop a project that related to the issues. In the blog, participants could find the external learning resources about sustainability. Some participants expressed the challenge or frustration they faced when they needed to decide what kind of projects they should work on. In the workshop that I conducted with Taylor, Taylor said, “I still have to understand a bit more about the sustainable development goals.” Kelsey said, “At the beginning, I was not sure what I want to do about the project.” Riley also said, “I think climate change is the most important thing that people engage with everyday … but I don’t know how to connect it with [my] project.” Riley told me in a workshop, “I need some help to start my project.” 81 In the workshop that I conducted with Ellis, I asked them what additional resources I might provide them. Ellis expressed the following: I don’t think I need any more resources, but maybe … having something so I can … be accountable … You know … maybe like forcing people to do check-ins … I think that pressure would really make me … want to do it as soon as possible. In the interview with Kelsey, Kelsey said it would be nice if I could provide more video tutorials to teach participants coding. Kelsey also said that it could be better if I had provided participants with more ideas about “how we can use this [the maker kit] in [making] different things.” In the interview with Riley, Riley also said, “I can’t program it [Micro:bit] by myself and I need help.” Kelsey did not participate in any workshops or support sessions. Kelsey said that they used Google and Tik Tok to learn from what other had done instead. Riley participated in four workshops and one support session. The details about participants’ attendance at workshops and support sessions can be found in Appendix K. Participants had different needs for workshops and support sessions. Some of them enjoyed more freedom, while some of them needed more guidance. 4.4.4.3 Communication Breakdown. This subtheme “Communication breakdown” represents the miscommunication that happened between participants and myself in the Zoom workshops and support sessions. For example, in a workshop that I conducted with Riley, I guided Riley to connect a Micro:bit to a servo motor using a breakout board. The workshop was conducted in Zoom. I used both my computer and my mobile phone to connect to the Zoom session with Riley. I placed my mobile phone on top of my desk using a stand, so that Riley could see my Micro:bit and all the other components. I demonstrated the process step by step, including how to attach the breakout board to the Micro:bit, and how to connect a servo motor to 82 the breakout board. However, although Riley followed all the steps I did, Riley’s servo motor did not work. We spent a lot of time to troubleshoot the issue. Eventually, we discovered that Riley had accidentally flipped the breakout board upside down, and hence the servo motor did not work. Below are the dialogues between Riley and myself when we discovered what went wrong: Me: So, this time ... if your program is downloaded and installed properly, you will see the icon. Riley: I can see the shape inside, but I don’t know. I have something else on top, I can’t understand it. Me: Something else on top? Riley: Yes. Me: So, mine is like ... Let me stop sharing [the screen]. When you press A, you will have a heart ... Riley: I think I attached it in the wrong way. Let me show you (laugh). Me: Can you show me? Because the cable [the USB cable that connects Riley’s Micro:bit to Riley’s computer] is too short … Riley: (Showing the Micro:bit in front of the camera, rotating it around) Is it the right way or wrong way? Me: Oh ... yeah. Riley: (laugh) Me: (laugh) That’s why. Riley: That’s why (laugh). Me: OK. So, we figured it [the problem] out hopefully. It is so tricky. 83 4.4.5 Summary of the Findings for the Third Research Question In this section, I have reported the findings of four themes and six subthemes for the third research question Q3: What do prospective educators’ learning experiences with Micro:bits look like? In Chapter 5, I will compare and contrast the findings with the theoretical framework that I discussed in Chapter 2, which include maker empowerment (Clapp et al., 2016), critical pedagogy (Freire, 1974), and constructionism (Papert, 1988). I will also discuss the intangible barriers that learners may face when they learn physical computing remotely. 4.5 Chapter Summary In this chapter, I have reported the findings of this study, which comprise nine themes and 12 subthemes that I created to answer the three research questions of this study. These themes and subthemes relate to prospective educators’ understanding of CT, the cognitive and affective strategies of teaching CT using Micro:bits, the processes of participants’ maker-centered learning experiences, and the challenges that participants faced in their remote learning experiences. In the next chapter, I will discuss and conclude the findings. 84 Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion 5.1 Chapter Overview In the previous chapter, I have presented the findings of this study. In this chapter, I will discuss the research questions by synthesizing the themes and subthemes that I have reported. I will first provide and discuss an operational definition of CT that participants co-constructed. Then, I will explain the cognitive and affective pathways that can support learners in developing CT through physical computing. After that, I will discuss participants’ maker-centered learning experiences based on the theoretical framework of this study. I will also discuss the intangible barriers that learners may face when they participate in physical computing remotely. Two diagrams will be provided to summarize the discussion, and to explain the implications of this research. Recommendations for future research will also be provided, followed by a conclusion. Table 9 is an overview of the literature linked to the findings of this study, which I will discuss in this chapter. Table 9 Literature Linked to the Findings Research Question Themes Literature Q1 Section 4.2: What do prospective educators think CT means? CT is everywhere but hidden in daily life. CT is the logical and systematic process used to solve problems. CT can put computational resources in action. (Denning, 2017; Papert, 1980; Wing, 2006, 2017) Q2 Section 4.3: What do prospective educators perceive as the strategies to teach CT with Micro:bits? The cognitive pathways that nurture logical thinkers. The affective pathways that nurture creative problem solvers. (Clapp et al., 2016; Dewey, 1938; Kafai et al., 2020; Kolb, 2015; Korhonen et al., 2019; Miller, 2016; Papert, 1980; Regalla, 2016; Tissenbaum et al., 2019; Wing, 2006, 2017) Q3 Section 4.4: What do prospective educators’ learning experiences with Micro:bits look like? Imagine with computing tools. Empathize by making. Persevere by tinkering. Intangible barriers. (Clapp et al., 2016, 2016; Freire, 1974; Miller, 2016; Papert, 1980, 1988; Regalla, 2016) 85 5.2 Research Question Q1 The first research question is Q1: What do prospective educators think CT means? The following are the themes reported in Section 4.2: • CT is everywhere but hidden in daily life • CT is the logical and systematic process used to solve problems • CT can put computational resources in action The data extracts of these themes show that participants shared similar viewpoints about the meaning of CT, even though they have different academic backgrounds. Their viewpoints support Papert’s (1980) and Wing’s (2006) vision: Anyone can use CT in their daily life. To summarize the meaning of CT that prospective educators in this study co-constructed, I synthesized the themes of research question Q1 into an operational definition of CT. 5.2.1 The Operational Definition of CT This is an operational definition of CT grounded in participants’ viewpoints: Computational thinking can form problem-solving ideas that are practical, logical, systematic, and embeddable in computing artifacts. This operational definition represents what prospective educators in this study think CT means. It also comprises five criteria that we can use to observe and identify CT in our everyday lives. In the following subsections, I will describe and explain these criteria, which include: • CT can form problem-solving ideas. • CT is practical. • CT is logical. 86 • CT is systematic. • CT is embeddable in computing artifacts. 5.2.2 CT Can Form Problem-Solving Ideas The first criterion of the definition states that CT can form problem-solving ideas. This criterion is grounded in participants’ statements that described CT as a thought process to solve problems. However, CT is not the only thinking tool that problem solvers can use. To identify CT, we also need to specify what kinds of ideas that CT can form. To put it succinctly, the ideas that CT can form are practical, logical, systematic, and embeddable in computing artifacts. 5.2.3 CT is Practical The second criterion of the definition states that CT is practical. CT can form ideas that target practical problems. For example, CT is not good at solving philosophical or ethical problems like “What is love?” or “Do we have free will?” This criterion is grounded in participants’ statements that associated CT with the actions that people take in real-life situations. For instance, people can use CT to overcome obstacles in their job. This criterion allows us to identify CT in people’s problem-solving actions. If the actions are logical, systematic, and embeddable in computing artifacts, then CT can be involved in the actions. 5.2.4 CT is Logical The third criterion of the definition states that CT is logical. This criterion is grounded in participants’ statements that connected CT with logical thinking. For example, participants described CT as a logical, sequential, and step-by-step approach for solving problems. 87 5.2.5 CT is Systematic The fourth criterion of the definition states that CT is systematic. This criterion is grounded in participants’ statements that described CT as a systematic approach to solve problems. In other words, the problem-solving ideas that CT forms can contain well-organized parts, each part focuses on solving a small part of a bigger problem. 5.2.6 CT is Embeddable in Computing Artifacts The fifth criterion of the definition states that CT is embeddable. The ideas that CT forms can be embedded in computing artifacts to solve problems. Computing artifacts include any software, hardware, or objects that can be controlled by computing. A computer program, a Micro:bit, a website, or an automatic windshield wiper are examples of computing artifacts. This criterion is grounded in participants’ statements that described CT as something prevalent, hidden, and applicable in computational resources. 5.2.7 Other Discussion Pertaining to Q1 Although the operational definition synthesized from participants’ viewpoints cannot represent all possible viewpoints, it contains concise and rich information that can complement existing CT definitions. For example, Wing (2017) stated that CT is “the thought processes involved in formulating a problem and expressing its solution(s) in such a way that a computer—human or machine—can effectively carry out” (p. 8). Although Wing’s definition provides a succinct description of CT, it lacks details about the thought processes that CT involves. In contrast, the operational definition of this study specifies that CT involves logical and systematic thinking. This additional information grounded in participants’ viewpoints and lived experiences can help others understand, observe, or identify CT in everyday lives. 88 CT is everywhere but hidden in daily life is the most surprising and interesting theme that pertains to research question Q1. This theme contains two contradictory concepts. On the one hand, participants stated that CT is found everywhere in our daily lives. On the other hand, participants also stated that CT is invisible to many people. The statement that one of the participants, Kelsey, made about their prior knowledge of CT may explain this contradiction. Kelsey stated, “I know only what I need to know for my career.” This statement comprises two concepts. On the one hand, people may use CT at work every day, which explains why CT is prevalent in our daily lives. On the other hand, people may only be aware of the CT that relates to their expertise, which explains why CT can be hidden in daily life. Kelsey’s statement supports the following argument that Denning made. According to Denning (2017), applying CT to design “computations in a domain requires extensive domain knowledge” (p. 37). It follows that identifying the use of CT in different domains also needs extensive domain knowledge. For example, developers of the GPS systems and map applications in our smartphones might have used CT in their development processes or embedded their problem-solving ideas into these computing artifacts. However, the CT ideas embedded in these artifacts can be hard to identify and understand for someone who is unfamiliar with mobile application development, map construction, or how GPS works. This discussion relates to the statement that Wing (2006) made about the nature of CT as a “universally applicable attitude and skill set” (p. 33) for problem-solving, which Denning (2017) pointed out that Wing’s statement about the universal applicability of CT “has never been substantiated with empirical research” (p. 37). The operational definition of CT synthesized in this study suggests that there are some CT skills that are more universal, such as the logical and systematic thought processes involved in CT. However, Kelsey’s statement also points out that CT can involve extensive domain-specific 89 knowledge that is less universal. Future research could be undertaken to further explore whether CT is universal or domain-specific. 5.3 Research Question Q2 The second research question is Q2: What do prospective educators perceive as the strategies to teach CT with Micro:bits? The following are the themes reported in Section 4.3: • The cognitive pathways that nurture logical thinkers. • The affective pathways that nurture creative problem solvers. The data extracts of these themes show that participants had two distinct sets of strategies to teach CT with Micro:bits. I organized these strategies into three cognitive pathways and three affective pathways. These pathways support Papert’s (1980) belief that children’s participation in computing can facilitate their cognitive and affective development. 5.3.1 The Cognitive Pathways The cognitive pathways focus on nurturing learners’ logical thinking skills. Participants stated that Micro:bits can nurture a learner’s logical mindset to facilitate the development of CT. Each of the following three cognitive pathways focus on one strategy that can nurture logical thinkers. The first cognitive pathway encourages learners to apply mathematics in their Micro:bit projects. “Apply mathematics to create logical systems” is the subtheme that this pathway is based upon (See Section 4.3.1.1). Participant Jody stated that the foundations of CT and computing is mathematics and logic. Jody also stated that teachers can introduce the connection between mathematics and computing to support learners in developing CT. These statements support the interdisciplinary nature of CT. This pathway uses Micro:bits as the “transitional 90 objects” (Papert, 1980, p. 187) for learners to connect abstract knowledge in mathematics with CT and computer science. This strategy supports Korhonen et al.’s (2019) belief that physical computing devices like Micro:bits can facilitate learning across disciplinary boundaries. The second cognitive pathway pertains to the design of algorithms. “Design precise automations to shape the world” is the subtheme that this pathway is based upon (See Section 4.3.1.2). Micro:bits can provide learners with the opportunities to practice programming, which involves breaking a task down into precise steps. This pathway informs learners to be aware of the constraints of a given task, and challenges learners to design the best algorithm to overcome the constraints. This strategy supports the main activity of CT that Wing (2017) pointed out, which is “formulating a problem and expressing its solution(s)” (p. 8). The third cognitive pathway challenges learners to create reliable systems. “Create impartial machines to complement human weaknesses” is the subtheme that this pathway is based upon (See Section 4.3.1.3). Participant Taylor stated that Micro:bits can handle a counting task better than humans because Micro:bits can produce the same output every time a specific input is present. This pathway guides learners to identify, describe, and implement all the inputs and outputs of a complex system. This strategy supports Wing’s (2006) belief that CT involves “using invariants to describe a system’s behavior succinctly and declaratively” (p. 33). 5.3.2 The Affective Pathways The affective pathways pertain to developing learners’ creative problem-solving skills. Participants stated that Micro:bits can nurture students’ creativity. Additionally, participant Ellis stated that teachers should get students to feel excited about solving problems. These statements support the view that emotional support is needed for learners to develop creative problem-91 solving skills. Each of the three affective pathways focuses on one emotional support that can nurture creative problem-solving in learners. The first affective pathway fosters a sense of accomplishment by engaging learners in creative experimentation. “Enjoy problem-solving with all your heart” is the subtheme that this pathway is based upon (See Section 4.3.2.1). Participants expressed that they felt excited and satisfied about their Micro:bit projects. Participant Ellis also stated that teachers should provide learners with the freedom to experiment with Micro:bits. This statement reinforces the argument that Tissenbaum et al. (2019) expressed about the need to “engage kids in meaningful projects rather than canned exercises” (p. 36) in CT education. This strategy supports student agency and cultivates learners’ intrinsic motivation to learn CT. The second affective pathway nurtures a sense of empowerment by encouraging learners to solve real-world issues with CT. “Become creative producers” is the subtheme that this pathway is based upon (See Section 4.3.2.2). Participant Riley had never thought about being able to program an electronic device, but Riley expressed a sense of empowerment describing the moment that a Micro:bit project worked for the first time. Participant Quinn also stated that Micro:bits can empower young learners to produce creative solutions for sustainability issues. Riley’s lived experience and Quinn’s statement support the belief of “maker empowerment” (Clapp et al., 2016, p. 12) and “digital empowerment” (Tissenbaum et al., 2019, p. 34), which promotes the idea that anyone, not just experts, can participate in solving real-world problems. The third affective pathway cultivates a sense of belonging through social experience. “Share the joy of computing with others” is the subtheme that this pathway is based upon (See Section 4.3.2.3). Participant Kelsey told some friends about the joy of learning Micro:bits. Kelsey stated that these friends, who are teachers, would try using Micro:bits in their classrooms. 92 Participants also stated that teaming up with others to work on Micro:bit projects is an enjoyable experience. This pathway promotes the idea that learning CT with Micro:bits is a social experience that people can enjoy and work together on. This pathway confirms a characteristic of the maker mindset that Regalla (2016) described as “a disposition to share and collaborate” (p. 265). 5.3.3 Other Discussion Pertaining to Q2 One of the most important findings for research question Q2 is the identification of the affective pathways. In the literature, research about the emotional support that practitioners provide in CT education is scarce. Kafai et al. (2020) argued that the practices and research in CT education “place different emphases on either (1) skill and competence building, (2) creative expression and participation, or (3) social justice and ethics” (p. 45). Kafai et al. (2020) described these perspectives as the “three framings of computational thinking” (p. 46), which include the cognitive, situated, and critical framings. However, Kafai et al. (2020) did not mention any emotional development aspects of CT education. The lack of emphasis on the emotional support in CT education may be an outcome of over-emphasizing the cognitive development aspects of CT. This explanation is supported by Kafai et al.’s (2020) review which pointed out that most CT research focuses on the cognitive framing. The cognitive emphasis of CT is illustrated in the article that Wing wrote in 2006. Wing (2006) stated that CT is a skill for solving “intellectually challenging” (p. 35) problems, and promoted that CT is an important skill in the workplace. This statement reinforced the concern that Miller (2016) pointed out about “a materialist vision of education that denies the wholeness of the person” (p. 283). Miller (2016) stated that the purpose of education is not about making students more “marketable” (p. 300) in the job market. Instead, Miller (2016) proposed a framework called “holistic education” (p. 289), 93 which “focuses on teaching the whole child-head, hands and heart” (p. 289). The analogy of teaching the head, hands, and heart connects with participants’ experiential learning (Dewey, 1938; Kolb, 2015), which focused on solving the sustainability issues that participants’ cared about. Participants were engaged in forming their problem-solving ideas with their minds. They were immersed in “making” with their hands. They also received a sense of accomplishment, empowerment, and belonging that can nurture the development of their hearts. The development of learners’ hearts is the cultivation of two important feelings in learners’ social world. It is the feeling of being cared for. It is also a feeling of the urge to care for others. Therefore, future research may explore how CT education can support learners’ development holistically, paying attention to both their intellectual and emotional development. 5.4 Research Question Q3 The third research question is Q3: What do prospective educators’ learning experiences with Micro:bits look like? The following are the themes reported in Section 4.4: • Imagine with computing tools • Empathize by making • Persevere by tinkering • Intangible barriers The first three themes pertain to three processes in participants’ maker-centered learning experiences with Micro:bits. These processes support the theoretical framework of this study, which include maker empowerment (Clapp et al., 2016), critical pedagogy (Freire, 1974), and constructionism (Papert, 1988). The fourth theme shows three major challenges that participants faced in their remote learning experiences with Micro:bits. 94 5.4.1 The Maker-Centered Learning Experiences with Micro:bits Participants’ maker-centered learning experiences centered around the following questions that makers may ask recursively in their making processes: • What projects can I make with the available resources? • For whom do I make this project and why? • How do I make this project? The first process of participants’ maker-centered learning experiences pertains to this question: What projects can I make with the available resources? “Imagine with computing tools” is the theme that this process is based upon (See Section 4.4.1). Clapp et al. (2016) explained that maker-centered education can provide learners with the opportunities to make sense of the possible relationships between a system and its components. This belief is supported by participants’ lived experiences. Participants stated that the components in the Micro:bit maker kits inspired their project ideas. They also described the functionality of the systems that they built in their projects in terms of the components they used. The second process of participants’ maker-centered learning experiences pertains to this question: For whom do I make this project and why? “Empathize by making” is the theme that this process is based upon (See Section 4.4.2). The data extracts of this process show that participants turned their abstract ideas into their final products by empathizing the needs of others. The maker-centered experiences with Micro:bits provided participants with the opportunities to turn their empathy into action for the places, people, or things that they care about. This process supports Freire’s (1974) belief that learners should be empowered to be aware of the agency and power that they have, so that they can take life-changing actions for themselves or others. 95 The third process of participants’ maker-centered learning experiences pertains to this question: How can I make this project? This process is based upon the theme “Persevere by tinkering” and the following subthemes reported in Section 4.4.3: • Play with the unknown • Sense the imperceptible • Improvise with a vision Although participants faced many challenges in their projects, they all managed to improvise and complete the projects. The data extracts related to participants’ tinkering processes reinforce the ideas of constructionism (Papert, 1988). By engaging learners in the tangible and playful experience of making meaningful artifacts, learners can overcome the cognitive and affective challenges that they faced in learning (Papert, 1980). On the one hand, Micro:bits can provide learners with the “objects-to-think-with” (Papert, 1988, p. 11), so that they can construct a deeper understanding of the abstract concepts involved in physical computing. On the other hand, by tinkering with Micro:bits, the resulting excitement and satisfaction can also help learners persevere in their learning experiences. 5.4.2 The Remote Learning Experiences with Micro:bits Participant Riley stated that learning physical computing remotely is hard. The following are three major challenges identified from the data set (See Section 4.4.4). • Superficial social experience • Agency overload • Communication breakdown I named these challenges “intangible barriers” because when people participate in physical computing in person, they can share their tangible experiences with each other. For 96 example, they can touch what others are making and try them out with their own hands. However, such tangible experiences are impossible in a remote setting. The first intangible barrier is called “superficial social experience” (See Section 4.4.4.1). Participants stated that the lack of social experience was one of the areas that this study may improve in the future. This statement is supported by the low participation in the online learning blog. The low participation in the blog and the desire for more social experience may indicate that participants prefer in-person interaction more than remote interaction. A possible reason for this preference is because in-person interaction can allow participants to share their tangible experiences with others. The second intangible barrier is called “agency overload” (See Section 4.4.4.2). Participants stated that they enjoyed the freedom given in this study, but they also expressed frustration about the freedom. In particular, several participants said that they felt frustrated about what projects they should work on. Participants stated that they wished they could discuss their project ideas with other participants. However, except for one comment that a participant made for another participant’s completed project, no participant had discussed about their project ideas in the blog. For participants who did not express the need for discussion, they might considered discussion as optional. For participants who expressed the need for discussion, the following are two possible explanations about why they did not use the blog for discussion. The first reason is simply because participants preferred in-person discussion. The second reason is because participants might think that the efforts of starting a discussion in the blog could exceed the expected values of the discussion. The efforts required to initiate a discussion include spending more time and taking more responsibility to continue the discussion. 97 The second reason is supported by a conversation I had with participant Ellis, who asked me to make participants more “accountable” by “forcing people to do check-ins.” The word “accountable” in the conversation connects with the responsibility that learners need to undertake in their learning. This conversation suggests that developing such responsibility requires a lot of effort from learners. Ellis even recommended the use of external force to intervene. I named this intangible barrier “agency overload” because although learners value freedom and agency, the findings suggest that learners could also feel overwhelmed by the responsibility that they need to undertake to drive their learning and participate in the interactions with other learners. 5.4.3 Other Discussion Pertaining to Q3 One of the most interesting findings of research question Q3 is that although Papert (1988) criticized that a technocentric mindset may place too much emphasis on the importance of technology, participants’ maker-centered learning experiences indicate that a technocentric mindset is needed in the process of formulating project ideas based on the available resources. In fact, participants might have use three different mindsets in their “making” processes. The different mindsets involved connect with the essence of holistic education (See Section 5.3.3), which focuses on teaching the “head, hands and heart” (Miller, 2016, p. 289) of a whole person. “Imagine with computing tools” is a process that pertains to identifying what problems that available technology can solve, which involves a technocentric mindset. This mindset focuses on teaching the head. It can help learners develop their sensitivity and ability to understand the human-made world. “Persevere by tinkering” is a process that emphasizes playful improvisation to overcome challenges, which involves a maker mindset (Regalla, 2016). This mindset focuses on teaching 98 the hands. It can help learners develop their curiosity and creativity to connect abstract concepts they learned from different subjects with the tangible world. “Empathize by making” is a process that focuses on addressing the needs of people and the world, which involves a critical mindset that applies critical thinking. This mindset focuses on teaching the heart. It can help learners gain a deeper understanding of the purpose of learning, the purpose of life, and the purpose of being a member in their communities. Thus, instead of regarding a technocentric mindset as an absolute bad thing, the findings of this study suggest that a technocentric mindset may be regarded as a process that makers need to go through in their making processes. Learners and educators may benefit from being more aware of the three different mindsets discussed above. For example, makerspace instructors may scaffold learning by explicitly asking learners to switch between these three mindsets in their “making” processes. In short, to become a thoughtful maker and a whole person, learners cannot just focus on developing one mindset but ignore the others. 5.5 Implications In the previous sections, I have discussed the operational definition of CT (See Section 5.2), the pathways of learning CT (See Section 5.3), and participants’ lived experiences with Micro:bits (See Section 5.4). In the following, I will summarize how these discussions can contribute to CT education. The operational definition of CT synthesized in Section 5.2.1 provides five concise and observable criteria for identifying the use of CT in daily life. These criteria are grounded in the meaning of CT co-constructed by prospective educators from different disciplines. The 99 operational definition can be used by other prospective educators and learners as a starting point to discuss the meaning of CT. Figure 2 summarizes the criteria in the operational definition. Figure 2 Five Criteria in the Operational Definition of CT The cognitive and affective pathways synthesized in Section 5.3 provides six different strategies for educators to integrate physical computing in CT education. These strategies can be used in any combination and in any order to address learners’ needs. Furthermore, the three processes discussed in Section 5.4.1 can be used alongside the pathways to scaffold learning. Figure 3 summarizes the pathways and processes. The middle of the figure shows the three processes involved in participants’ maker-centered learning experience with Micro:bits. The six different cognitive and affective pathways are color-coded in blue and red respectively, 100 surrounding the three processes. A Micro:bit activity example that integrates the pathways “Apply mathematics to create logical systems” and “Become creative producers” is to challenge learners to create a number counter for people with visual impairment. Learners can use the three recursive making processes to understand the needs of those with visual impairment, design an accessible counter for them, and explore how to creatively represent and manipulate numbers. Figure 3 The Pathways and Processes of Learning CT with Micro:bits The three intangible barriers discussed in Section 5.4.2 can guide educational technology developers to create better tools to facilitate remote learning of physical computing. These barriers show that learners may need better support to (a) collaborate with others, (b) engage in online discussion, and (c) communicate with other learners or the instructor in a remote setting. 101 5.6 Recommendations for Future Research The following are eight recommendations for future research about CT education. First, researchers may explore the emotional development aspects of CT education, which have been identified as an under-researched area. In particular, given the small sample size and the qualitative nature of this study, future research may explore validating the need of providing better emotional development support in CT education with a quantitative design and larger sample size. Second, the field may well benefit from research that examines the application of the cognitive and affective pathways when teaching young learners CT through physical computing. Third, further qualitative case studies could sample participants that have other academic or career backgrounds. By comparing and contrasting the meaning and application of CT from those who have other academic or career backgrounds, we can further investigate whether CT is a universal problem-solving skill (Wing, 2006) or a domain-specific skill (Denning, 2017) as discussed in Section 5.2. Fourth, future research may use physical computing tools other than Micro:bits, such as Arduino, to explore how this can affect the research findings. Fifth, future research may also explore prospective educators’ viewpoints about teaching CT through computer simulation instead of physical computing tools, and compare their perspectives to the findings of this study. Sixth, researchers may explore how the use of physical computing tools like Micro:bits can support teachers who are fearful of incorporating technology in their classrooms. Seventh, researchers may also facilitate the collaboration between different subject teachers, and explore how the findings of this study can be applied to cross-disciplinary learning. Eighth, the maker kits and learning resources of this study may be adapted for future research that contribute to addressing the digital divide. For example, the maker kits and resources can be made available for disadvantaged children who did not have access to physical computing tools 102 like Micro:bits. Researchers may invite prospective educators to volunteer in teaching these disadvantaged children, and explore prospective educators’ viewpoints about how CT education can become more inclusive to address the digital divide. Furthermore, to overcome the intangible barriers that limit learning physical computing in remote settings, educational technology developers may explore the following three areas. First, developers may explore the use of multi-user augmented reality to simulate a collaborative learning experience of physical computing in a remote setting. Second, developers may also explore the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to facilitate discussion in a learning blog. For example, development of an AI chatbot that can encourage discussion could be helpful. Third, developers may implement a feature in video conferencing software that would allow instructors to know how their live demonstrations appear on learners’ computer screens. 5.7 Conclusion In this chapter, I have discussed the findings, summarized their implications, and suggested several areas for future research. This exploratory case study is aimed at understanding prospective educators’ viewpoints about how learners can develop CT through physical computing. Based on the findings, the affordance of physical computing in CT education can be summarized with the following statement: Physical computing can support learners in developing computational thinking by engaging learners in thoughtful computing. On the one hand, thoughtful computing represents the cognitive and affective pathways that can support learners’ intellectual and emotional development (See Section 5.3). On the other hand, thoughtful computing also represents the practice of using multiple mindsets in learners’ 103 “making” processes, which includes the technocentric, critical, and maker mindsets (See Section 5.4). Furthermore, if CT is a universal problem-solving skill that everyone should learn (Wing, 2006), I argue that thoughtful computing represents the ethical responsibility that everyone should undertake when they apply CT in daily life. Educators should also be mindful about whether existing CT education has over-emphasized the importance of making our children’s thinking more “computational.” For example, Kafai et al. (2020) pointed out that “the dominant framing of computational thinking … is cognitive” (p. 46). The dominating emphasis of the cognitive development aspects of CT education can be viewed with some concern. However, by engaging learners in “making” and physical computing, and providing them with the opportunities to participate in solving real-world issues, I believe that learners can develop and apply their creativity, empathy, and critical thinking to make computing a much more thoughtful process. 104 References Amineh, R. J., & Asl, H. D. (2015). Review of constructivism and social constructivism. Journal of Social Sciences, Literature and Languages, 1(1), 9–16. Atencio, C. P. (2022). Awesome Micro:bit. https://github.com/carlosperate/awesome-microbit Austin, J., Baker, H., Ball, T., Devine, J., Finney, J., De Halleux, P., Hodges, S., Moskal, M., & Stockdale, G. (2020). The BBC Micro:bit: From the U.K. to the world. Communications of the ACM, 63(3), 62–69. https://doi.org/10.1145/3368856 Bar-El, D., & Worsley, M. (2021). Making the maker movement more inclusive: Lessons learned from a course on accessibility in making. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 29, Article 100285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2021.100285 Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544–559. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2008.1573 Bers, M. U. (2010). Beyond computer literacy: Supporting youth’s positive development through technology. New Directions for Youth Development, 2010(128), 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.371 Bers, M. U. (2021). From computational thinking to computational doing. In M. U. Bers (Ed.), Teaching computational thinking and coding to young children (pp. 1–20). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-7308-2.ch001 Bevan, B., Petrich, M., & Wilkinson, K. (2014). Tinkering is serious play. Educational Leadership, 72(4), 28–33. 105 Bill Siever (Director). (2022, January 20). Micro:bit human interface devices over BLE: Examples [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4J5GN72N_4 Blackley, S., Sheffield, R., Maynard, N., Koul, R., & Walker, R. (2017). “Makerspace” and reflective practice: Advancing pre-service teachers in stem education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 42(3), 22–37. Blikstein, P. (2013). Gears of our childhood: Constructionist toolkits, robotics, and physical computing, past and future. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, 173–182. https://doi.org/10.1145/2485760.2485786 Bourke, B. (2014). Positionality: Reflecting on the research process. The Qualitative Report, 19(33), 1–9. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. SAGE Publications. https://books.google.ca/books?id=mToqEAAAQBAJ Brennan, K. (2015). Beyond technocentrism: Supporting constructionism in the classroom. Constructivist Foundations, 10(3), 289–296. Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking [Conference Presentation]. 2012 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, BC, Canada. 106 Butler, D., & Leahy, M. (2021). Developing preservice teachers’ understanding of computational thinking: A constructionist approach. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(3), 1060–1077. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13090 Chakarov, A. G., Bush, J., Biddy, Q. L., Jacobs, J., Elliott, C. H., & Sumner, T. (2021). Challenges and unexpected affordances of physical computing going remote. Interaction Design and Children, 276–282. https://doi.org/10.1145/3459990.3460711 Chang, Y., & Peterson, L. (2018). Pre-service teachers’ perceptions of computational thinking. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 26(3), 353–374. Clapp, E. P., Ross, J., Ryan, J. O., & Tishman, S. (2016). Maker-centered learning: Empowering young people to shape their worlds. Jossey-Bass. College & Career Ready Labs │ Paxton Patterson (Director). (2018, May 8). Computational thinking: What is it? How is it used? [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbnTZCj0ugI Cook-Sather, A. (2006). Sound, presence, and power: “Student voice” in educational research and reform. Curriculum Inquiry, 36(4), 359–390. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-873X.2006.00363.x Cope, D. G. (2014). Methods and meanings: Credibility and trustworthiness of qualitative research. Number 1 / January 2014, 41(1), 89–91. https://doi.org/10.1188/14.ONF.89-91 Coquitlam School District. (2018). Our Micro:bit story. School District No. 43 (Coquitlam). https://www.sd43.bc.ca/Resources/EdTech/Documents/OurMicrobitStory.SD43.pdf Daniels, J. (2009). Cloaked websites: Propaganda, cyber-racism and epistemology in the digital era. New Media & Society, 11(5), 659–683. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809105345 107 Dawn DuPriest (Director). (2021, January 27). Programming a servo with the Micro:bit and MakeCode [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijRBim2ydFs Denning, P. J. (2017). Remaining trouble spots with computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 60(6), 33–39. https://doi.org/10.1145/2998438 Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. D C Heath. https://doi.org/10.1037/10903-000 Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Macmillan. diSessa, A. A. (2018). Computational literacy and “the big picture” concerning computers in mathematics education. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 20(1), 3–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2018.1403544 Dougherty, D. (2012). The maker movement. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 7(3), 11–14. https://doi.org/10.1162/INOV_a_00135 dweet.io. (n.d.). dweet.io—Share your thing- like it ain’t no thang. Dweet.Io. Retrieved January 8, 2023, from https://dweet.io/ Easterbrook, S. (2014). From computational thinking to systems thinking: A conceptual toolkit for sustainability computing. 235–244. https://doi.org/10.2991/ict4s-14.2014.28 ELECFREAKS. (n.d.). Sonar:bit(F04089). Retrieved January 9, 2023, from https://www.elecfreaks.com/learn-en/microbitOctopus/sensor/sonar_bit.html England, K. V. L. (2010). Getting personal: Reflexivity, positionality, and feminist research. The Professional Geographer. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.0033-0124.1994.00080.x 108 Fagerlund, J., Häkkinen, P., Vesisenaho, M., & Viiri, J. (2021). Computational thinking in programming with Scratch in primary schools: A systematic review. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 29(1), 12–28. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22255 Falls, Z. (2020). Beyond boundaries: Pre-service teachers’ experiences of transdisciplinary education via STEAM making projects. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 39(1), 19–31. Forsythe, G. E. (1967). A university’s educational program in computer science. Communications of the ACM, 10(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1145/363018.363038 Forsythe, G. E. (1968). What to do till the computer scientist comes. The American Mathematical Monthly, 75(5), 454–462. https://doi.org/10.2307/2314698 Freire, P. (1974). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Seabury Press. Gannon, S., & Buteau, C. (2018). Integration of computational thinking in Canadian provinces. Online Proceedings of the Computational Thinking in Mathematics Education Symposium. Glitch. (n.d.). Glitch: The friendly community where everyone builds the web. Retrieved January 8, 2023, from https://glitch.com/ Goldkuhl, G. (2012). Pragmatism vs interpretivism in qualitative information systems research. European Journal of Information Systems, 21(2), 135–146. https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2011.54 Govender, R. G., & Govender, D. W. (2021). A physical computing approach to the introduction of computer programming among a group of pre-service teachers. African Journal of 109 Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 25(1), 91–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/18117295.2021.1924440 Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in k–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12463051 Guzdial, M. (2008). Education paving the way for computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 51(8), 25–27. https://doi.org/10.1145/1378704.1378713 Guzdial, M., & Shreiner, T. (2021). Integrating computing through task-specific programming for disciplinary relevance: Considerations and examples. In Computational Thinking in Education. Routledge. Halpern, D. F. (1998). Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains: Disposition, skills, structure training, and metacognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 53(4), 449–455. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.53.4.449 Halverson, E., & Sheridan, K. (2014). The maker movement in education. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 495–504. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.4.34j1g68140382063 Hamilton, L., & Corbett-Whittier, C. (2012). Using case study in education research. Sage. Harricharan, M., & Bhopal, K. (2014). Using blogs in qualitative educational research: An exploration of method. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 37(3), 324–343. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2014.885009 Harrison, H., Birks, M., Franklin, R., & Mills, J. (2017). Case study research: Foundations and methodological orientations. Forum : Qualitative Social Research, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-18.1.2655 110 Hatch, M. (2014). The maker movement manifesto: Rules for innovation in the new world of crafters, hackers, and tinkerers. McGraw-Hill. https://doi.org/10.1036/9780071821131 Hello Ruby (Director). (2019, September 2). Episode 02: Computational thinking [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3vwRQCfTHc Henderson, E. H. (1943). Toward a definition of propaganda. Journal of Social Psychology, 18(1), 71–87. HKU e-Learning (Director). (2020, March 10). [Demo 1] Use Basic:bit for Micro:bit to connect and control a servo motor [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQpKoVLfwA Holmes, A. G. D. (2020). Researcher positionality—A consideration of its influence and place in qualitative research—A new researcher guide. Shanlax International Journal of Education, 8(4), 1–10. IFTTT. (n.d.). IFTTT - Connect your apps. IFTTT. Retrieved January 8, 2023, from https://ifttt.com/ ISTE. (n.d.). ISTE Standards: Students. Retrieved January 9, 2023, from https://www.iste.org/standards/iste-standards-for-students ISTE (Director). (2020a, January 10). Computational thinker 5a: Problem definitions (ISTE Standards for Students) [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFs2CJySBtI ISTE (Director). (2020b, January 10). Computational thinker 5b: Data sets (ISTE Standards for Students) [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JTCj23wD58 111 ISTE (Director). (2020c, January 10). Computational thinker 5c: Extract key information (ISTE Standards for Students) [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z21dFzGNBCE ISTE (Director). (2020d, January 10). Computational thinker 5d: Algorithmic thinking (ISTE Standards for Students) [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMuINOL855k ISTE. (2021). Computational thinking for all. https://www.iste.org/explore/computational-thinking/computational-thinking-all Johnson, D. C., Anderson, R. E., Hansen, T. P., & Klassen, D. L. (1980). Computer literacy—What is it? The Mathematics Teacher, 73(2), 91–96. Jones, W. M., Smith, S., & Cohen, J. (2017). Preservice teachers’ beliefs about using maker activities in formal k-12 educational settings: A multi-institutional study. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 49(3–4), 134–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2017.1318097 JULES (Director). (2017, May 7). Best of digital literacy + computational thinking for children [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUXo-S7gzds Juškevičienė, A., Stupurienė, G., & Jevsikova, T. (2021). Computational thinking development through physical computing activities in STEAM education. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 29(1), 175–190. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22365 Kafai, Y. B. (2016). From computational thinking to computational participation in K--12 education. Communications of the ACM, 59(8), 26–27. https://doi.org/10.1145/2955114 112 Kafai, Y. B., Proctor, C., & Lui, D. (2020). From theory bias to theory dialogue: Embracing cognitive, situated, and critical framings of computational thinking in K-12 CS education. ACM Inroads, 11(1), 44–53. https://doi.org/10.1145/3381887 Kalelioglu, F., & Sentance, S. (2020). Teaching with physical computing in school: The case of the Micro:bit. Education and Information Technologies, 25(4), 2577–2603. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-10080-8 Katz, D. L. (1960). Conference report on the use of computers in engineering classroom instruction. Communications of the ACM, 3(10), 522–527. https://doi.org/10.1145/367415.993453 Kim, J.-Y., Chung, H., Jung, E. Y., Kim, J.-O., & Lee, T.-W. (2020). Development and application of a novel engineering-based maker education course for pre-service teachers. Education Sciences, 10. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1255141 Kolb, D. A. (2015). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (2nd ed.). Pearson Education. Korhonen, T., Salo, L., & Sormunen, K. (2019). Making with Micro:bit: Teachers and students learning 21st century competences through the innovation process. Proceedings of FabLearn 2019, 120–123. https://doi.org/10.1145/3311890.3311906 Kules, B. (2016). Computational thinking is critical thinking: Connecting to university discourse, goals, and learning outcomes. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 53(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.2016.14505301092 Li, Y., Schoenfeld, A. H., diSessa, A. A., Graesser, A. C., Benson, L. C., English, L. D., & Duschl, R. A. (2020). Computational thinking is more about thinking than computing. 113 Journal for STEM Education Research, 3(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-020-00030-2 Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage. Lipman, M. (1987). Critical thinking: What can it be? Analytic Teaching, 8(1), Article 1. https://journal.viterbo.edu/index.php/at/article/view/403 Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in education (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840272 Lodi, M., & Martini, S. (2021). Computational thinking, between Papert and Wing. Science & Education, 30(4), 883–908. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00202-5 Luehrmann, A. (1971). Should the computer teach the student, or vice versa? Proceedings of the May 16-18, 1972, Spring Joint Computer Conference, 407–410. https://doi.org/10.1145/1478873.1478925 Luehrmann, A. (1981). Computer literacy—What should it be? The Mathematics Teacher, 74(9), 682–686. McIntosh, M. J., & Morse, J. M. (2015). Situating and constructing diversity in semi-structured interviews. Global Qualitative Nursing Research, 2, 2333393615597674. https://doi.org/10.1177/2333393615597674 Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. Revised and expanded from case study research in education. Jossey-Bass. Michael Klements (Director). (2020, December 7). Micro:bit automatic plant watering system [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv4lb-U9QUU 114 Micro:bit Educational Foundation. (n.d.-a). Do your :bit activities for your classroom. Micro:Bit. Retrieved December 21, 2021, from https://microbit.org/projects/do-your-bit/ Micro:bit Educational Foundation. (n.d.-b). Remote learning with the micro:bit. Micro:Bit. Retrieved December 25, 2021, from https://microbit.org/get-started/user-guide/remote-teaching/ Micro:bit Educational Foundation. (n.d.-c). The Micro:bit Educational Foundation. Retrieved January 21, 2023, from https://microbit.org/about/ Micro:bit Educational Foundation (Director). (2020a, February 28). Get creative! [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sg9e7oRgAxU Micro:bit Educational Foundation (Director). (2020b, February 28). Micro:bit accelerometer [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UT35ODxvmS0 Micro:bit Educational Foundation (Director). (2020c, February 28). Micro:bit buttons [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnT0qHM3_hQ Micro:bit Educational Foundation (Director). (2020d, February 28). Micro:bit compass [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3P6LWwPBqM Micro:bit Educational Foundation (Director). (2020e, February 28). Micro:bit LEDs [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRhlaXqT-0w Micro:bit Educational Foundation (Director). (2020f, February 28). Micro:bit light sensing [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ii0U_FMr-Z4 Micro:bit Educational Foundation (Director). (2020g, February 28). Micro:bit pins [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDgdHb0R96I 115 Micro:bit Educational Foundation (Director). (2020h, February 28). Micro:bit processor [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9tk07CzTAA Micro:bit Educational Foundation (Director). (2020i, February 28). Micro:bit radio [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvymAr6WqrQ Micro:bit Educational Foundation (Director). (2020j, February 28). Micro:bit sound [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r53PjFwyAhw Micro:bit Educational Foundation (Director). (2020k, February 28). Micro:bit temperature sensing [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrHn8eZ9eqg Micro:bit Educational Foundation (Director). (2020l, February 28). Micro:bit USB interface [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke04WnxxT5c Micro:bit Educational Foundation (Director). (2020m, February 28). Transferring your program to the BBC Micro:bit [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FZ8yTnoozY Micro:bit Educational Foundation (Director). (2020n, October 12). Sensing and making sound on the BBC Micro:bit [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waIdGCitbH4 Micro:bit Educational Foundation (Director). (2021a, January 19). Input and output devices [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkoS2JXaBuM Micro:bit Educational Foundation (Director). (2021b, January 19). Introduction to the BBC Micro:bit [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2u7UJSRuko Micro:bit Educational Foundation (Director). (2021c, January 19). Touch sensor [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spFD3SxxxHQ 116 Micro:bit Educational Foundation (Director). (2021d, March 1). Do your :bit frequently asked questions [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tp0XekhdXEI Microsoft. (n.d.). Plant watering. Microsoft MakeCode. Retrieved January 9, 2023, from https://makecode.microbit.org/projects/plant-watering Miller, J. P. (2016). Equinox: Portrait of a holistic school. International Journal of Children’s Spirituality, 21(3–4), 283–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364436X.2016.1232243 Molnar, A. R. (1979). The next great crisis in American education: Computer literacy. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 7(3), 275–285. https://doi.org/10.2190/TM2Q-LLGE-AFJ8-UYBP Norman, D. A. (1984). Worsening the knowledge gap. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 426(1), 220–233. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1984.tb16522.x Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1), 1609406917733847. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847 p5js. (n.d.). P5.js web editor | Test WebUSB. Retrieved January 26, 2023, from https://editor.p5js.org/centerlaw/sketches/UDgmPzpQM Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books, Inc. Papert, S. (1988). A critique of technocentrism in thinking about the school of the future. In B. Sendov & I. Stanchev (Eds.), Children in the Information Age (pp. 3–18). Pergamon. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-036464-3.50006-5 117 Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. BasicBooks, 10 East 53rd St. Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. In S. Papert & I. Harel (Eds.), Constructionism. Ablex Publishing. Pastel, R. (n.d.). WebUSB with Micro:bit | CS4760, HU4628 & CS5760: Human-Computer Interactions & Usability. Retrieved January 8, 2023, from https://cs4760.csl.mtu.edu/2020/lectures/webusb-with-microbit/ Piaget, J. (1973). To understand is to invent: The future of education. Grossman Publishers. PlushPal. (n.d.). PlushPal. Retrieved January 9, 2023, from https://www.plushpal.app/ Polya, G. (2004). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method. Princeton University Press. Popfizz Computer Science (Director). (2019, April 17). Computational thinking [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVfGUdIaUvY Presseisen, B. Z. (1986, April 20). Critical thinking and thinking skills: State of the art definitions and practice in public schools. The 70th Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED268536 Province of British Columbia. (n.d.). Introduction to applied design, skills, and technologies. Retrieved January 22, 2023, from https://curriculum.gov.bc.ca/content/applied-design-skills-and-technologiesintroduction 118 Przybylla, M., & Romeike, R. (2014). Physical computing and its scope—Towards a constructionist computer science curriculum with physical computing. Informatics in Education, 13(2), 225–240. https://doi.org/10.15388/infedu.2014.14 Regalla, L. (2016). Developing a maker mindset. In Makeology. Routledge. Reilly Grant, Ken Rockot, & Ovidio Ruiz-Henríquez (Eds.). (2022). WebUSB API. Web Platform Incubator Community Group. https://wicg.github.io/webusb/ Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Hernández, A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., Millner, A., Rosenbaum, E., Silver, J., Silverman, B., & Kafai, Y. (2009). Scratch: Programming for all. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 60–67. Rode, J. A., Weibert, A., Marshall, A., Aal, K., von Rekowski, T., El Mimouni, H., & Booker, J. (2015). From computational thinking to computational making. Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing, 239–250. https://doi.org/10.1145/2750858.2804261 Rodriguez, S., Smith, S., & Harron, J. (2021). Analyzing the development of science and mathematics teachers’ maker-centered philosophy and instructional practices. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 21(1), 97–125. Scratch. (n.d.). Scratch—Micro:bit. Retrieved January 9, 2023, from https://scratch.mit.edu/ Sengupta, P., Dickes, A., & Farris, A. V. (2021). Voicing code in stem: A dialogical imagination. The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11668.001.0001 Sentance, S., Waite, J., Yeomans, L., & MacLeod, E. (2017). Teaching with physical computing devices: The BBC Micro:bit initiative. Proceedings of the 12th Workshop on Primary and Secondary Computing Education, 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1145/3137065.3137083 119 Shermis, S. S. (1992). Critical thinking: Helping students learn reflectively. ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills, Indiana University, 2805 E. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED341954 Siever, B. (2019). GitHub—Bsiever/microbit-webusb: WebUSB Utils for Micro:bit. https://github.com/bsiever/microbit-webusb Siever, B. (2022). BLEHID. https://github.com/bsiever/microbit-pxt-blehid Smith, J. M. (2021). Is computational thinking critical thinking? In Y. Wen, Y. Wu, G. Qi, S.-C. Guo, J. M. Spector, S. Chelliah, Kinshuk, & Y.-J. Lan (Eds.), Expanding Global Horizons Through Technology Enhanced Language Learning (pp. 191–201). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-7579-2_11 Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage. Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, `translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631289019003001 Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613–629. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.6.613 Sternberg, R. J. (1986). Critical thinking: Its nature, measurement, and improvement. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED272882 Stu Lowe (Director). (2020, September 28). Coding with Micro:bit—Part 8—Making a servo powered waving arm and inch worm [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1H0e6un7DY 120 Suppes, P. (1966). The uses of computers in education. Scientific American, 215(3), 206–223. techthings.ca (Director). (2015, May 27). Computational thinking Jeanette Wing [Video]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igTy7SA8818 Tedre, M., & Denning, P. J. (2016). The long quest for computational thinking. Proceedings of the 16th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research, 120–129. https://doi.org/10.1145/2999541.2999542 Terry, G., & Hayfield, N. (2021). Essentials of thematic analysis. American Psychological Association. Tissenbaum, M., Sheldon, J., & Abelson, H. (2019). From computational thinking to computational action. Communications of the ACM, 62(3), 34–36. Tran, Y. (2019). Computational thinking equity in elementary classrooms: What third-grade students know and can do. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57(1), 3–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117743918 Tseng, T., Murai, Y., Freed, N., Gelosi, D., Ta, T. D., & Kawahara, Y. (2021). Plushpal: Storytelling with interactive plush toys and machine learning. Interaction Design and Children, 236–245. https://doi.org/10.1145/3459990.3460694 Tyler Works (Director). (2020, July 29). The Putt-Putt project: Program a continuous rotation servo control board [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEPAreE_25g UBC Equity & Inclusion Office. (2020). Equity and inclusion in data collection: General guidelines on asking for demographic information. https://isotl.sites.olt.ubc.ca/files/2019/03/eio-general_guidelines.pdf 121 United Nations. (n.d.). The 17 goals | Sustainable development. Retrieved January 9, 2023, from https://sdgs.un.org/goals United Nations (Director). (2018, April 20). Do you know all 17 SDGs? [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XTBYMfZyrM Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. Walden, J., Doyle, M., Garns, R., & Hart, Z. (2013). An informatics perspective on computational thinking. Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, 4–9. https://doi.org/10.1145/2462476.2483797 Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215 Wing, J. M. (2011). Research notebook: Computational thinking—What and why? The Link Magazine, 6, 20–23. Wing, J. M. (2017). Computational thinking’s influence on research and education for all. Italian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(2), 7–14. Yadav, A., Gretter, S., Good, J., & McLean, T. (2017). Computational thinking in teacher education. In P. J. Rich & C. B. Hodges (Eds.), Emerging Research, Practice, and Policy on Computational Thinking (pp. 205–220). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52691-1_13 Yadav, A., Zhou, N., Mayfield, C., Hambrusch, S., & Korb, J. T. (2011). Introducing computational thinking in education courses. Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Technical 122 Symposium on Computer Science Education, 465–470. https://doi.org/10.1145/1953163.1953297 Yazan, B. (2015). Three approaches to case study methods in education: Yin, Merriam, and Stake. The Qualitative Report, 20(2), 134–152. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2015.2102 Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications (6th ed.). Sage. 123 Appendix A Micro:bit Maker Kit Figure A1 Components of the Micro:bit Maker Kit Note. The following is a list of all the components in the maker kit: (1) 180° servo motor, (2) continuous servo motor, (3) ultrasonic distance sensor, (4) extra parts for servo motors, (5) capacitive moisture sensor, (6) Micro:bit, (7) USB cable, (8) screwdriver, (9) breakout board with screws, (10) three alligator clips, (11) USB-A to USB-C adapter, (12) battery holder with batteries, (13) LEDs and screws, (14) relay switch, (15) water pump 124 Appendix B Craft Materials Figure B1 Bought Materials Note. The following is a list of all the bought materials in the package of craft materials: (1) white glue, (2) masking tape, (3) wooden clips, (4) rubber bands, (5) hook, (6) paper clips, (7) construction paper, (8) brass fasteners, (9) toothpicks and string, (10) sticky tack, (11) magnets, (12) magnetic tape, (13) pipe cleaners, (14) wooden sticks, (15) hook and loop tape, (16) popsicle sticks 125 Figure B2 Used Materials Note. A box of used shuttlecock containers was collected from a donor in Facebook Marketplace. Each participant received two containers as materials that they could upcycle. 126 Appendix C IoT Web Applications Figure C1 IoT Web Application – Dashboard and Triggers Note. URL of the web application - https://microbit-webusb-dashboard.glitch.me/ This is a screenshot of a web application I created for this study. This application can display the values of a Micro:bit’s internal sensors in a dashboard. Also, users can configure a Micro:bit’s internal sensor to trigger an online event. For example, users can configure the Micro:bit’s light sensor to trigger a tweet on Twitter to say “Good morning” when the environmental light exceeded a specified value. This application relies on the free IoT service provided by IFTTT. 127 Figure C2 IoT Web Application - Actions and Events Note. URL of the web application - https://microbit-webusb-actions.glitch.me/ This is a screenshot of a web application I created for this study. Users can use this application to configure a Micro:bit to perform an action when a remote event occurs. For example, users can configure a Micro:bit to play a music tune when someone tweeted on Twitter with a specific hashtag. This application relies on the free IoT services provided by dweet.io and IFTTT. 128 Appendix D Content in the Online Learning Blog Table D1 Recorded Micro:bit Video Tutorials Tutorial Topic Tutorial Description Video Description Video Link Get Started This is a series of video tutorials about the different components in the Micro:bit maker kit. Connect external components with breakout board. https://youtu.be/Vsty0dNQ2wg Experiment with light sensor and LED light. https://youtu.be/CUXXFMLKpQE Read data from a moisture sensor. https://youtu.be/9iGYAlqS3tg Read data from a distance sensor. https://youtu.be/Rsd2Z3as1mM Connect and program the servo motors. https://youtu.be/S3zYtbyXuOw Configure the capacitive touch pins. https://youtu.be/SnvTOTNhHMQ Create Artbot This is a series of video tutorials about making a simple Artbot that can doodle. Read light sensor data and install MakeCode program. https://youtu.be/KysudfgaFVU Use conditional block, extension blocks, a servo motor, and simple materials to program and made an Artbot. https://youtu.be/Twigo6ZRdqc Make Music This is a series of video tutorials about making music with Micro:bit. Make a musical instrument and interactive sound effects. https://youtu.be/wuTe-3iNz58 Use variables to define different beat durations. https://youtu.be/wbRUnCKqcXY Create a function and use a repeat block to blend notes. https://youtu.be/W3ox_5hT3k0 Pass parameters to a function. https://youtu.be/7cuvM8iWV9A Post a Tweet (Talking Plant) This is a series of video tutorials about making a plant talk via Twitter. Micro:bit’s internal light sensor is used as a trigger to post a Tweet. Install test programs and know the WebUSB limitation. https://youtu.be/lSkA3ooY5EU Use IFTTT to post a tweet. https://youtu.be/NCjRG0LOi-Q About the source code. https://youtu.be/Om3goteqeTk Show a Tweet This is a video tutorial about showing an icon in a Micro:bit when a Tweet is posted with a specified hashtag. Use Dweet.io and IFTTT to respond to a tweet. https://youtu.be/9-tTwC3rYj0 Graph Data This is a video tutorial about sending data to an IoT platform called Adafruit to plot a graph. Send data to Adafruit.io. https://youtu.be/_RAUz1YL_Jc Note. All the videos listed in the above table were created by the author, Ho Chung Law. 129 Table D2 Linked Learning Resources - Micro:bit Type Topic Link Source Video Introducing Micro:bit https://youtu.be/u2u7UJSRuko (Micro:bit Educational Foundation, 2021b) Video Input device and output device https://youtu.be/NkoS2JXaBuM (Micro:bit Educational Foundation, 2021a) Video Microprocessor https://youtu.be/Y9tk07CzTAA (Micro:bit Educational Foundation, 2020h) Video Installing program https://youtu.be/-FZ8yTnoozY (Micro:bit Educational Foundation, 2020m) Video 5 x 5 LEDs https://youtu.be/eRhlaXqT-0w (Micro:bit Educational Foundation, 2020e) Video Digital buttons https://youtu.be/hnT0qHM3_hQ (Micro:bit Educational Foundation, 2020c) Video Measuring speed and orientation https://youtu.be/UT35ODxvmS0 (Micro:bit Educational Foundation, 2020b) Video Measuring temperature https://youtu.be/mrHn8eZ9eqg (Micro:bit Educational Foundation, 2020k) Video Measuring light https://youtu.be/ii0U_FMr-Z4 (Micro:bit Educational Foundation, 2020f) Video Digital compass https://youtu.be/a3P6LWwPBqM (Micro:bit Educational Foundation, 2020d) Video Sensing touch https://youtu.be/spFD3SxxxHQ (Micro:bit Educational Foundation, 2021c) Video Making sound https://youtu.be/r53PjFwyAhw (Micro:bit Educational Foundation, 2020j) Video Sensing sound https://youtu.be/waIdGCitbH4 (Micro:bit Educational Foundation, 2020n) Video Radio connection https://youtu.be/rvymAr6WqrQ (Micro:bit Educational Foundation, 2020i) Video Programmable pins https://youtu.be/EDgdHb0R96I (Micro:bit Educational Foundation, 2020g) Video USB connection https://youtu.be/ke04WnxxT5c (Micro:bit Educational Foundation, 2020l) Video Creative ideas https://youtu.be/Sg9e7oRgAxU (Micro:bit Educational Foundation, 2020a) Video Breakout board and servo motor https://youtu.be/cIQpKoVLfwA (HKU e-Learning, 2020) Video Simple robotics - 180° servo motor https://youtu.be/e1H0e6un7DY (Stu Lowe, 2020) Video Simple robotics - Continuous motor https://youtu.be/gEPAreE_25g (Tyler Works, 2020) Video Example programs for servo motors https://youtu.be/ijRBim2ydFs (Dawn DuPriest, 2021) Document Documentation of the distant sensor https://www.elecfreaks.com/learn-en/microbitOctopus/sensor/sonar_bit.html (ELECFREAKS, n.d.) Video Advanced plant watering system https://youtu.be/rv4lb-U9QUU (Michael Klements, 2020) Webpage Simple plant watering system https://makecode.microbit.org/projects/plant-watering (Microsoft, n.d.) Video Micro:bit BLE HID https://youtu.be/n4J5GN72N_4 (Bill Siever, 2022) Document Documentation of Micro:bit BLE HID https://github.com/bsiever/microbit-pxt-blehid (Siever, 2022) Webpage Use Micro:bit with Scratch https://scratch.mit.edu/microbit (Scratch, n.d.) Webpage Micro:bit and machine learning https://www.plushpal.app/ (PlushPal, n.d.) Webpage Links to other Micro:bit resources https://github.com/carlosperate/awesome-microbit (Atencio, 2022) Note. The above lists the URLs of other resources related to Micro:bit that the blog linked to. The topics of these resources include basic descriptions of Micro:bit’s features as well as more advanced topics such as machine learning (PlushPal, n.d.). 130 Table D3 Linked Learning Resources – Computational Thinking Type Topic Link Source Article Wing’s 2006 article about computational thinking. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274309848_Computational_Thinking (Wing, 2006) Video Wing explains computational thinking with an analogy of cooking. https://youtu.be/igTy7SA8818 (techthings.ca, 2015) Video This video compares computational thinking with solving a mathematical problem, and explains four steps of computational thinking. https://youtu.be/qbnTZCj0ugI (College & Career Ready Labs │ Paxton Patterson, 2018) Video This video connects computational thinking with how programmers think. https://youtu.be/kVfGUdIaUvY (Popfizz Computer Science, 2019) Video This video emphasizes computational thinking is a problem-solving skill related to critical and logical thinking. https://youtu.be/mUXo-S7gzds (JULES, 2017) Video This video explains that teaching and learning computational thinking is a great way to make learning Computer Science more accessible. https://youtu.be/K3vwRQCfTHc (Hello Ruby, 2019) Webpage Teaching and learning resources from ISTE and CSTA about Computational thinking. https://www.iste.org/explore/computational-thinking/computational-thinking-all (ISTE, 2021) Webpage Computational thinking is included in the ISTE Standards. https://www.iste.org/standards/iste-standards-for-students (ISTE, n.d.) Video Computational thinking involves defining problems. https://youtu.be/SFs2CJySBtI (ISTE, 2020a) Video Computational thinking involves thinking with data. https://youtu.be/4JTCj23wD58 (ISTE, 2020b) Video Computational thinking involves decomposing complex problems and constructing models. https://youtu.be/Z21dFzGNBCE (ISTE, 2020c) Video Computational thinking involves designing and testing algorithms. https://youtu.be/zMuINOL855k (ISTE, 2020d) Note. The above lists the URLs of other resources related to computational thinking that the blog linked to. The topics of these resources include the article about computational thinking written by Wing (2006), the educational standards related to computational thinking provided by ISTE (ISTE, n.d.), and other viewpoints about computational thinking. 131 Table D4 Linked Learning Resources – Sustainable Development Type Topic Link Source Video This video introduces the 17 sustainable development goals promoted by the United Nations. https://youtu.be/0XTBYMfZyrM (United Nations, 2018) Webpage This is the official website of the United Nations’ sustainable development goals. https://sdgs.un.org/goals (United Nations, n.d.) Video This is a video about the Micro:bit Educational Foundation’s do your :bit competition. It is a recurring contest that invites students to develop solutions for the United Nations’ sustainable development goals. https://youtu.be/tp0XekhdXEI (Micro:bit Educational Foundation, 2021d) Webpage This is the official website of the Micro:bit Educational Foundation’s do your :bit competition. It contains example projects and information about the competition. https://microbit.org/projects/do-your-bit/ (Micro:bit Educational Foundation, n.d.-a) Note. The above lists the URLs of other resources related to sustainable development that the blog linked to. The topics of these resources include the 17 sustainable development goals promoted by the United Nations (United Nations, 2018), and the related competition organized by the Micro:bit Educational Foundation (Micro:bit Educational Foundation, 2021d). 132 Figure D1 Example Page in the Blog Post 133 Appendix E Initial Online Survey Table E1 Questions of the Initial Online Survey No. Type Question Purpose 1 Open-Ended Why are you interested in this study? Understand why participants participated 2 Open-Ended Can you tell us something about your academic interests? Collect participants’ general background information 3 Open-Ended Can you tell us something about your career interests? Collect participants’ general background information 4 Multiple-Checkbox Will you choose any of the following as your career? Please check 1 or more box(es) Teacher / Makerspace instructor / Librarian / School technician / School administrator / Education policy maker / Designer of educational technology / Developer of educational technology / Entrepreneur of educational technology / Other careers related to education / Other careers related to technology / Careers related to sustainable development Understand participants’ interests in careers related to education, technology, and sustainable development 5 Yes-No Have you used Micro:bit before? Yes / No Understand participants’ familiarity with Micro:bit 6 Open-Ended What do you know about Micro:bit? Understand participants’ prior knowledge of Micro:bit 7 Multiple-Choice How much do you know about physical computing? a. I know a lot about it b. I know something about it c. I have heard about it but I don't know much about it d. I haven't heard about it Understand participants’ familiarity with physical computing 8 Open-Ended What do you know about physical computing? Understand participants’ prior knowledge of physical computing 9 Multiple-Choice How much do you know about computational thinking? a. I know a lot about it b. I know something about it c. I have heard about it but I don't know much about it d. I haven't heard about it Understand participants’ familiarity with computational thinking 10 Open-Ended What do you know about computational thinking? Understand participants’ prior knowledge of computational thinking 11 Multiple-Choice How much programming experience do you have? a. I am very experienced in programming b. I have done some basic programming c. I haven't done any programming before Understand participants’ programming experience 12 Multiple-Choice Do you like programming? a. Yes b. Not sure c. No Understand participants’ attitude towards programming Note. Participants could skip any questions. 134 Appendix F Semi-Structured Interview Table F1 Initial Prompts and Follow-Up Questions of the Semi-Structured Interview No. Initial Prompt Follow-Up Question 1 Can you tell me something about your creative project? Can you tell me more about how you decided to work on that project? Can you tell me more about the problems your project can solve? 2 Do you think you are a maker? Why? Can you tell me more about something you have made before? What do you feel when you have made something? 3 Can you tell me something you have learned from your creative and learning experiences in this study? Can you tell me more about how you learned that? Anything else? 4 What do you like or dislike most in your experiences? Can you tell me more about them? Can you tell me more about how you feel about the experience? Can you tell me more about what made you feel that way? 5 What will you suggest to make the learning experiences better? Can you tell me more about why you think so? Anything else? 6 How will you explain to a grade 3 student what computational thinking is? If the student has never used a computer, will you explain differently? What else may help you explain to the student? 7 Can you give me some examples of computational thinking in everyday life? Can you tell me more about that example? Do you have another example? 8 Can you tell me something you particularly like or dislike about Micro:bit? Can you tell me more about how you feel about Micro:bit? Can you tell me more about what made you feel that way? 9 Have you learned anything new from your experiences with Micro:bit? Can you tell me more? Can you tell me more about how you learned that? Can you tell me more about what else you have learned? 10 Do you agree or disagree that Micro:bit is helpful for you to learn computational thinking? Why? Can you tell me more with an example? Can you tell me more about what made you think so? 11 What do you think may be the potential benefits for students and teachers to use Micro:bit in their classrooms? Can you give me some / another example(s)? Anything else? 12 What do you think may be the potential challenges for students and teachers to use Micro:bit in their classrooms? Can you give me some / another example(s)? Anything else? 13 Imagine there is a classroom where every student has a Micro:bit. If you are asked to teach the students how they may integrate computational thinking into their everyday life, what will you do? What will your students do with the Micro:bits? Anything else? 14 Have any of your beliefs about learning, teaching, and yourself changed because of the creative and learning experiences in this study? Can you tell me more about what made you think so? Anything else? 15 Will you consider working on some other projects using Micro:bit in the future? What projects do you think you may work on? Can you tell me more about it? Can you tell me more about why you are interested in that project? Can you tell me more about the purpose of that project? Note. Participants could skip any questions. 135 Table F2 Connecting the Interview Questions with the Research Questions No. Interview Question Purpose Connection with Research Question Q1 Q2 Q3 11 What do you think may be the potential benefits for students and teachers to use Micro:bit in their classrooms? Understand more about participants’ perspectives of the opportunities to learn and teach with Micro:bit. ✓ 12 What do you think may be the potential challenges for students and teachers to use Micro:bit in their classrooms? Understand more about participants’ perspectives of the challenges to learn and teach with Micro:bit. ✓ 13 Imagine there is a classroom where every student has a Micro:bit. If you are asked to teach the students how they may integrate computational thinking into their everyday life, what will you do? Understand participants’ perspectives of the strategies to teach computational thinking to young students through physical computing. ✓ ✓ 6 How will you explain to a grade 3 student what computational thinking is? Understand what participants think computational thinking means in simple terms. ✓ ✓ 7 Can you give me some examples of computational thinking in everyday life? Understand participants’ perceptions of everyday examples of computational thinking. ✓ ✓ 10 Do you agree or disagree that Micro:bit is helpful for you to learn computational thinking? Why? Understand whether, and how, participants connect their physical computing experiences with their development of computational thinking. ✓ ✓ ✓ 5 What will you suggest to make the learning experiences better? Understand participants’ perspectives about the strategies to improve the learning experiences. ✓ ✓ 1 Can you tell me something about your creative project? Understand participants’ hands-on experiences. ✓ 2 Do you think you are a maker? Why? Understand participants’ prior maker experiences. ✓ 3 Can you tell me something you have learned from your creative and learning experiences in this study? Understand participants’ maker-centered learning experiences. ✓ 4 What do you like or dislike most in your experiences? Can you tell me more about them? Understand the positive and negative sides of participants’ lived experiences. ✓ 8 Can you tell me something you particularly like or dislike about Micro:bit? Understand what participants learned about Micro:bit. ✓ 9 Have you learned anything new from your experiences with Micro:bit? Can you tell me more? Understand what participants learned with Micro:bit. ✓ 14 Have any of your beliefs about learning, teaching, and yourself changed because of the creative and learning experiences in this study? Understand what participants learned about learning, teaching, and themselves from their lived experiences. ✓ 15 Will you consider working on some other projects using Micro:bit in the future? What projects do you think you may work on? Can you tell me more about it? Understand participants’ anticipated future maker and physical computing experiences. ✓ Note. The following are the research questions: Q1: What do prospective educators think CT means? Q2: What do prospective educators perceive as the strategies to teach CT with Micro:bits? Q3:What do prospective educators’ learning experiences with Micro:bits look like? 136 Appendix G Final Online Survey Table G1 Questions of the Final Online Survey No. Type Question Purpose 1 Open-Ended Can you tell us something about your academic interests? Same as initial survey’s question no. 2 2 Open-Ended Can you tell us something about your career interests? Same as initial survey’s question no. 3 3 Multiple-Checkbox Will you choose any of the following as your career? Please check 1 or more box(es) Teacher / Makerspace instructor / Librarian / School technician / School administrator / Education policy maker / Designer of educational technology / Developer of educational technology / Entrepreneur of educational technology / Other careers related to education / Other careers related to technology / Careers related to sustainable development Same as initial survey’s question no. 4 4 Open-Ended What do you know about Micro:bit? Same as initial survey’s question no. 6 5 Multiple-Choice How much do you know about physical computing? a. I know a lot about it b. I know something about it c. I have heard about it but I don't know much about it d. I haven't heard about it Same as initial survey’s question no. 7 6 Open-Ended What do you know about physical computing? Same as initial survey’s question no. 8 7 Multiple-Choice How much do you know about computational thinking? a. I know a lot about it b. I know something about it c. I have heard about it but I don't know much about it d. I haven't heard about it Same as initial survey’s question no. 9 8 Open-Ended What do you know about computational thinking? Same as initial survey’s question no. 10 9 Multiple-Choice Do you like programming? a. Yes b. Not sure c. No Same as initial survey’s question no. 12 10 Open-Ended Can you tell us something about your creative and learning experiences with Micro:bit? Links to interview’s question no. 1, 2, 3, 4 11 Open-Ended Do you agree or disagree that your experiences with Micro:bit have helped you learn computational thinking? Please elaborate on your answer. Links to interview’s question no. 8, 9, 10 12 Open-Ended Do you agree or disagree that Micro:bit is helpful for learners to integrate computational thinking into everyday life? Please elaborate on your answer. Links to interview’s question no. 10, 11, 13 13 Open-Ended Have you identified any challenges for students to learn computational thinking using Micro:bit? Please elaborate on your answer. Links to interview’s question no. 8, 12 14 Open-Ended Have you identified any strategies for educators to use Micro:bits to empower learners to integrate computational thinking into everyday life? Please elaborate on your answer. Links to interview’s question no. 5, 6, 7, 13 Note. Participants could skip any questions. 137 Appendix H Recruitment Materials Figure H1 Design of the Recruitment Materials Note. The same design was adapted to create the online advertisement, poster, and leaflet. 138 Figure H2 Online Advertisement in Reddit. Note. The post was created in the recruitment site’s subreddit in Reddit. The link to this post was also shared in various Discord channels of the recruitment site. 139 Figure H3 Poster in the Campus Note. Tear-off tabs were added at the bottom of the poster. 140 Appendix I Project Examples Created by the Researcher Figure I1 Autonomous Window 141 Figure I2 Visualizing Diverse Opinions Note. I created this project using Dr. Bill Siever’s WebUSB library (Siever, 2019). I hosted the project in p5js.org https://editor.p5js.org/centerlaw/sketches/UDgmPzpQM (p5js, n.d.). 142 Appendix J Participants’ Blog Posts and Projects Figure J1 Quinn’s Blog Post 143 Figure J2 Ellis’s Comment about Quinn’s Blog Post Figure J3 A Micro:bit Program Ellis Created and Shared in the Blog Post 144 Figure J4 Ellis’s Blog Post Note. The image above was processed to protect participant’s anonymity. The image is a video in Ellis’s post. In the video, Ellis is testing the shade that interacts with a light source. 145 Figure J5 Jody’s Blog Post 146 Figure J6 Kelsey’s Blog Post Note. The image above was processed to protect participant’s anonymity. The image is a video in Kelsey’s post. In the video, Kelsey is testing a program with a distance sensor and a servo motor. 147 Figure J7 Kelsey’s Autonomous Vehicle Note. Kelsey gave me this autonomous vehicle alongside the maker kit that Kelsey returned. Kelsey provided the consent for me to include a picture of the vehicle in this thesis. 148 Appendix K Zoom Workshops and Support Sessions Table K1 Summary of the Zoom Workshops and Support Sessions Type Participant Topic Description Duration Workshop Ellis IoT Web Application for Micro:bit and Artbot I demonstrated how to configure a Micro:bit to interact with Twitter using the IoT web applications. I also showed how to create a simple Artbot that can doodle. 47 minutes Support Ellis Workaround for connecting more external components I demonstrated how to create a makeshift moisture sensor that can connect to a Micro:bit with two alligator clips. This frees up an external port in the breakout board, so that participant can connect the Micro:bit to more components. 19 minutes Workshop Riley Introduction to Micro:bit programming I demonstrated the basic workflow of programming a Micro:bit. 30 minutes Workshop Riley Logging data with Micro:bit I demonstrated how to use Micro:bit as a data logger for temperature data. 39 minutes Workshop Riley How to use the servo motor I demonstrated how to connect Micro:bit to a servo motor, and how to create a program to control the servo motor. 51 minutes Workshop Riley How to use the water pump and moisture sensor I demonstrated how to connect Micro:bit to a water pump and a moisture sensor. I also showed how to create a program for a plant watering project. 32 minutes Support Riley Debug a plant watering program I guided participant to debug a program that participant made for a plant watering program that uses a water pump and a moisture sensor. 50 minutes Workshop Taylor IoT Web Application for Micro:bit I demonstrated how to configure a Micro:bit to interact with Twitter using the IoT web applications. 28 minutes Support Jody Send data to Adafruit.io I demonstrated how to use the IoT web application to send data to adafruit.io. Adafruit.io is an IoT platform that offers free service like plotting IoT data. 15 minutes 149 Appendix L Transcription Guidelines Table L1 Guidelines for Verbatim Transcription and Minor Editing Audio Content How to Transcribe Example Pause in-between phases or clauses in a complete sentence Use a comma. (Before) I made some websites software things like that (After) I made some websites, software, things like that Contraction Use the long form (Before) I’ve (After) I have The speaker is trying to find the right words If the words do not introduce additional meanings to a sentence or they made the sentence incomplete or they made it hard to understand the sentence, then use three ellipses to replace the words. (Before) I mean if there is you know if I can have more time (After) I mean … if I can have more time The speaker’s words are inaudible Use parentheses with a description stating the segment is inaudible. (inaudible) I do not understand what the speaker says Use parentheses with a description stating the segment is unintelligible. (unintelligible) I am not totally sure what the speaker says Use parentheses with a description that ends with a question mark. (maker?) Other details observed in the video Use parentheses with a description. (participant and myself both laugh) (participant looks worried) Data that may expose participant’s identity or personal information like gender or ethnicity Use a square bracket with generic information to replace the specific information (Before) I teach my husband (After) I teach my [partner]
Thesis/Dissertation
eng
Education
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Graduate
Campbell, Robert
From computational thinking to thoughtful computing : perspectives on physical computing in maker-centered education
Text