Maintaining pluralism when embedding computational thinking in required science and engineering classes with young adolescents

Background and Context: Computational thinking and practices (CT|P) are key competencies for learners in science and engineering. For studies with young adolescents as participants, manifested research philosophies are sometimes inconsistent with societal pluralisms. Objective: Based on research literature from 2016 to early 2019 for CT|P in required science and engineering classes with youth ages 10-15 - a sensitive age range for cognitive and affective development - we wrote a literature review that argues for the use of more pluralistic and critical research philosophies, which will strengthen research design, implementation, and meta-inferences (Collins et al., 2012). Method: We analyzed 20 qualifying studies per research philosophies common to mixed research, giving extra attention to studies that acknowledge cultural pluralisms, engage those pluralisms in conversation with each other, and ensure that historically marginalized populations have equiTable - not just equal - participation (Onwuegbuzie & Frels, 2013). Findings: We found that studies consistently emphasized pragmatism-of-the-middle and communities of practice; sometimes operated within critical realist, pragmatism-of-the-right, or transformative-emancipatory philosophies; and rarely engaged in dialectical ways. Implications: To avoid decontextualized or overly individualistic approaches that fail to address systemic and institutional social inequities (in education, housing, healthcare, policing, voting, etc.), future work should take more pluralistic and critical philosophical approaches. We highlight several exemplars in hope that research will support youth in maintaining and extending computational practices in culturally sustaining ways (Paris, 2012).

Automated summary

This study examines computational thinking and practices in science and engineering classes for youth aged 10-15, highlighting the importance of employing more pluralistic and critical research philosophies to strengthen research design and implementation. It emphasizes the need to avoid decontextualized or overly individualistic approaches to address systemic social inequities.