Book released: Learner-Centered Design of Computing Education: Research on Computing for Everyone
December 23, 2015 at 7:51 am 12 comments
My book in John Carroll’s Human-Centered Informatics series was just released: Learner-Centered Design of Computing Education: Research on Computing for Everyone http://dx.doi.org/10.2200/S00684ED1V01Y201511HCI033
The book is available on Amazon here. There’s a cool website with all options for getting the book here.
I’ve put a copy of the Table of Contents and Preface here: http://bit.ly/LCD-CE-Guzdial.
My goal is to provide an overview (110 pages worth) of the research (over 300 references) related to computing education for everyone. I aim to connect literature from the traditional computing education research communities (e.g., SIGCSE and ICER) to research in learning sciences, educational psychology, and human-computer interaction. There is a lot of history in the book because that’s how I like to view these things.
I spent most of 2015 writing this book, and this year set the context for the book. This was the year that Chicago, San Francisco, Arkansas, and then New York City decided to require computing for everyone. I had all those efforts in mind when I was writing, to tell what research has found about teaching computing to everyone.
I expect to be blogging on some of themes in the book in 2016. Hope you all have Happy Holidays!
Entry filed under: Uncategorized. Tags: computing education research, learner-centered design.
12 Comments Add your own
Leave a comment
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed
Computing Ed Research - Guzdial's Take 
1.
Hobbes LeGault | January 11, 2016 at 1:45 pm
I’ve been reading through this book over my break and I’m looking forward to using at least some of it in my (highly experimental) seminar on CS education for CS people this spring. One question – in the second chapter, you make reference to both a “notional machine” (a machine of ideas) and a “notational machine” (a machine of notation?) – are references to the latter (e.g. section 2.5.2, top of p31) merely typos, or are these two separate concepts?
2.
Mark Guzdial | January 11, 2016 at 1:46 pm
Typo — thanks for noting that! I’m working on the errata so I’ll include that.
3.
What does it mean to assess Computational Thinking? | Computing Education Blog | January 13, 2016 at 8:12 am
[…] of the arguments I develop in my book on learner-centered design of computing education is that computational thinking, using Jeannette Wing’s description, is implausible. […]
4.
The President Wants Every Student To Learn Computer Science. How Would That Work? | Computing Education Blog | January 15, 2016 at 8:16 am
[…] My daughter said to me Wednesday morning after the President’s State of the Union Address, “Your Interwebs are going crazy today.” It’s true. The President said that he wants every student to learn CS, which is something that we’ve been talking about for decades (as in this blog post and this book I wrote). […]
5.
The Inverse Lake Wobegon Effect in Learning Analytics and SIGCSE Polls | Computing Education Blog | January 18, 2016 at 8:04 am
[…] about the Inverse Lake Wobegon effect (see the post here), a term that I coin in my new book (link to post about book). The Inverse Lake Wobegon effect is where we observe a biased, privileged/elite/superior sample […]
6.
Dagstuhl Seminar Poster: Critiquing CS Assessment from a CS for All Lens | Computing Education Blog | February 19, 2016 at 7:28 am
[…] Not everyone who learns CS is going to want to be a software engineer. Then why teach them CS? And how would you teach them, if the goal is not for students to develop software to professional standards? That’s what my new book is about. […]
7. Book Review: Learner-Centered Design of Computing Education | Academic Computing | March 1, 2016 at 6:52 am
[…] Mark Guzdial works at Georgia Tech and writes the most prolific and most read blog in computer science education. Thus I was intrigued to read his new book, “Learner-Centered Design of Computing Education: Research on Computing for Everyone”. […]
8.
How to Teach Computational Literacy/Thinking: Wolfram’s Language and Code.org’s Response | Computing Education Blog | October 31, 2016 at 7:18 am
[…] means the same thing as I do with CL instead of CT. I agree with him, and made a similar argument in my book. He goes on to argue that Wolfram Language (and the Mathematica infrastructure behind it) is […]
9.
Learning Programming at Scale: Philip Guo’s research | Computing Education Blog | September 11, 2017 at 7:00 am
[…] may be our best medium for presenting this kind of overview — books take too long (e.g., I did a book to do an overview of 10-15 years of work, but it may not be worth the effort for a shorter time frame), and few conferences or journals will […]
10.
Why should we teach programming (Hint: It’s not to learn problem-solving) | Computing Education Blog | October 18, 2017 at 12:30 pm
[…] programming to general problem-solving skills, and it is simply not there. I talk about these in my book, I reference the Palumbo meta-review in this blog post, and NYTimes wrote about it this last […]
11.
Advancing Computational Thinking Across K-12 Education, across Many Disciplines – Digital Promise #CSEdWeek | Computing Education Blog | December 8, 2017 at 7:01 am
[…] out from Digital Promise. I have been critical of some definitions of computational thinking (as I described in my book). I like the way Digital Promise defined them, and particularly how they connect CT to learning in […]
12.
Thanks. For all the fish, and everything else. | Computing Education Research Blog | March 1, 2019 at 8:00 am
[…] my mentors. At the start of Learner-Centered Design of Computing Education Research, there is this dedication […]