Dragons, Squishy Circuits, and Computational Thinking: Integrating Scientific Literacies into Elementary Classrooms

References

1. Fleming, C. (2013). Papa’s mechanical fish (B.Kulikov, Illus.). Farrar, Strauss, and Giroux.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Funk, J. (2019). How to code a sandcastle (S.Palacios, Illus.). Viking Books.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Karanja, C. (2018). Gabi’s if/then garden (B.Whitehouse, Illus.). Picture Window Books.
   [Google Scholar]
4. Reynolds, P. A., & Reynolds, P. H. (2014). Going places (P. H.Reynolds, Illus.). Simon & Schuster.
   [Google Scholar]
5. Rubin, A. (2012). Dragons love tacos (D.Salmieri, Illus.). Penguin.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Rubin, A. (2017). Dragons love tacos 2: The sequel (D.Salmieri, Illus.). Dial Books.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Bers, M. U. (2017). Coding as a playground: Programming and computational thinking in the early childhood classroom. Routledge.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Carrier, S. J., Tugurian, L. P., & Thomson, M. M. (2013). Elementary science indoors and out: Teachers, time, and testing. Research in Science Education, 43(5), 2059–83.
   [Google Scholar]
9. Chen, Y. C. (2019). Using the science talk-writing heuristic to build a new era of scientific literacy. The Reading Teacher, 73(1), 51–64.
   [Google Scholar]
10. Coburn, C. E., Penuel, W. R., & Farrell, C. C. (2021). Fostering educational improvement with research-practice partnerships. Phi Delta Kappan, 102(7), 14–19.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2015). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next generation. Teachers College Press.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Computer Science Teachers Association (CSTA) & International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE). (2011). Operational definition of computational thinking. http://www.csta.acm.org/Curriculum/sub/CurrFiles/CompThinkingFlyer.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
13. Conde, M. Á., Fernández, C., Alves, J., Ramos, M. J., Celis-Tena, S., Gonçalves, J., Lima, J., Reimann, D., Jormanainen, I., & Peñalvo, F. J. G. (2019, October). RoboSTEAM: A challenge based learning approach for integrating STEAM and develop computational thinking. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (pp. 24–30). ACM.
    [Google Scholar]
14. Dong, Y., Cateté, V., Jocius, R., Lytle, N., Barnes, T., Albert, J., Joshi, D., Robinson, R., & Andrews, A. (2019). PRADA: A practical model for integrating computational thinking in K–12 education. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM technical symposium on computer science education (SIGCSE ’19) (pp. 906–12). ACM.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Fang, Z., & Wei, Y. (2010). Improving middle school students’ science literacy through reading infusion. The Journal of Educational Research, 103(4), 262–73.
    [Google Scholar]
16. Grover, S. (2017). Assessing algorithmic and computational thinking in K–12: Lessons from a middle school classroom. In Emerging research, practice, and policy on computational thinking (pp. 269–88). Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Heisey, N., & Kucan, L. (2010). Introducing science concepts to primary students through read-alouds: Interactions and multiple texts make the difference. The Reading Teacher, 63(8), 666–76.
    [Google Scholar]
18. Hintz, A., & Smith, A. T. (2013). Mathematizing read-alouds in three easy steps. The Reading Teacher, 67(2), 103–108.
    [Google Scholar]
19. Hoffman, J. L., Collins, M. F., & Schickedanz, J. A. (2015). Instructional challenges in developing young children’s science concepts: Using informational text read-alouds. The Reading Teacher, 68(5), 363–72.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Holbrook, J., & Rannikmae, M. (2009). The meaning of scientific literacy. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 4(3), 275–88.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Israel, M., Pearson, J. N., Tapia, T., Wherfel, Q. M., & Reese, G. (2015). Supporting all learners in schoolwide computational thinking: A cross-case qualitative analysis. Computers & Education, 82, 263–79.
    [Google Scholar]
22. Jocius, R., Albert, J., Andrews, A., & Blanton, M. (2020). A study in contradictions: Exploring standards-based making in elementary classrooms. Journal of Educational Research, 113(5), 396–403.
    [Google Scholar]
23. Kafai, Y., 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.
    [Google Scholar]
24. Lee, I., & Malyn-Smith, J. (2020). Computational thinking integration patterns along the framework defining computational thinking from a disciplinary perspective. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(1), 9–18.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Making CT Project. (2019, December). Retrieved November 22, from https://www.makingct.com
    [Google Scholar]
26. Marsh, J., Arnseth, H. C., & Kumpulainen, K. (2018). Maker literacies and maker citizenship in the MakEY (Makerspaces in the Early Years) project. Multimodal Technologies and Interaction, 2(3), 50.
    [Google Scholar]
27. McLean, C. A., & Rowsell, J. (Eds.). (2020). Maker literacies and maker identities in the digital age: Learning and playing through modes and media. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
28. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards. The National Academies Press.
    [Google Scholar]
29. Pearson, P. D., Moje, E., & Greenleaf, C. (2010). Literacy and science: Each in the service of the other. Science, 328(5977), 459–63.
    [Google Scholar]
30. Peppler, K., & Bender, S. (2013). Maker movement spreads innovation one project at a time. Phi Delta Kappan, 95(3), 22–27. doi:10.1177/003172171309500306
    [Google Scholar]
31. Rich, K. M., Yadav, A., & Larimore, R. A. (2020). Teacher implementation profiles for integrating computational thinking into elementary mathematics and science instruction. Education and Information Technologies, 25(4), 3161–88.
    [Google Scholar]
32. Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40–59.
    [Google Scholar]
33. Shute, V. J., Sun, C., & Asbell-Clarke, J. (2017). Demystifying computational thinking. Educational Research Review, 22, 142–58.
    [Google Scholar]
34. Stake, R. E. (2008). Qualitative case studies. In N. K.Denzin & Y. S.Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (pp. 119–49). SAGE.
    [Google Scholar]
35. Stornaiuolo, A., Nichols, T. P., & Vasudevan, V. (2018). Building spaces for literacy in school: Mapping the emergence of a literacy makerspace. English Teaching: Practice & Critique, 17(4), 357–70.
    [Google Scholar]
36. Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Orton, K., Jona, K., Trouille, L., & Wilensky, U. (2016). Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(1), 127–47.
    [Google Scholar]
37. Wing, J. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35.
    [Google Scholar]
38. Wohlwend, K. E., Peppler, K. A., Keune, A., & Thompson, N. (2017). Making sense and nonsense: Comparing mediated discourse and agential realist approaches to materiality in a preschool makerspace. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 17(3), 444–62.
    [Google Scholar]