Adapting to the Computer Science Curriculum

Introduction

In 2012, the government introduced computing in schools to replace information communication technology (ICT). Since, the issue of assessing students learning of computational concepts remains a difficult task for most ICT teachers like me, who converted themselves to become computer science teachers. Besides, the government still imposed the computer science curriculum to schools without consulting the professionals within the teaching sector, generating a standardisation of practice Bottery (2004) which is an inadequate means to improve performance in response to accountability driven by league tables and fails to produce sustained improvement in schools worldwide. In a world where computing has become ubiquitous with the people as a complex digital world is being forged, change in the Education System and therefore change in the Computer Science curriculum is indeed necessary and inevitable to improve standards and avoid stagnation Fisher's (2011) and West-Burham (2007). It is important to instil proper computing skills in schools, to help students develop deeper, transferable computational thinking skills that prepare them for success in future computing experiences. My current role is that of “computer Science leader teacher.” The medium-sized secondary school where I am working has 1200 students including a sixth form and is non-selective embracing students from any gender, religion or academic ability. My research arose because my responsibilities as a lead teacher included improving and delivering the Computer Science curriculum for year nine. Each term Computer Science is taught to a different Year nine group; we have a total of three groups. At the end of the last round of the three groups, students possessing some abilities and who choose the subject of Computer Science will embark and learn it through their General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE).

When the opportunity arose to undertake a MA and conduct school-based research, my responsibility as a lead teacher in charge of the year nine, concerned about helping students develop deeper, transferable and computational thinking skills and the need for multiple measures or systems of assessments that are complementary to enhance the computational thinking of the students led me to seize the opportunity to explore students computational assessments. Wing (2006) outlined how and why Computational Thinking (CT) is an important skill set for problem-solving. According to Wing, CT is a way of conceptualising problems to be solved by humans by integrating basic methods derived from computer science. As a practitioner-researcher as endorsed by Hargreaves (2007), this research serves to improve my practice, inform the teaching profession, and serve as modelling for future teachers to become practitioner researchers in support of their efforts to meet the learning needs of the students with whom they work as well as have a voice in policy decisions that impact their professional lives. The research school has stressed the importance of the adapted curriculum as an area of development on the school development plan now called Think Tank, and the newly appointed Headteacher has a responsibility to develop teaching and to learn as well as raising the positive mental attitude of students across the school.

Summary of research and key findings

The question that this research addresses aimed to establish the importance of Computational Thinking and whether a tailored method of assessments improves the Computational Thinking of the year nine Computer Science students. Therefore the initial approach was to make sure that the participants define their view of Computational Thinking and in addition to assess the different methods that can be used to overcome the present challenges in the assessment of Computational Thinking (Harcourt et al., 2011). Although this study research aims at concentrating more on assessing the secondary education application of Computational Thinking, it can be used in the other classes or institutions of higher learning in society. I will be conducting the school-based research using the practitioner action research methodology. Action research is an empowering experience which allows changes to happen at the local level (Hopkins, 1985). This will be beneficial to School x and seeing students grow probably the greatest joy I can experience. As practitioner-action research, the knowledge produced will be primarily mode two knowledge. I will use a choice of research strategies that can facilitate bridging the gap between research and practice as suggested by Hargreaves (2007). Evidence to support this evaluation has been obtained with my approach to data collection. Both quantitative and qualitative methods have been used. The two methods were essential in facilitating proper collection and analysis of data in the research. The data collected from the year nine group and teachers were from questionnaires with open-ended questions, together with documentary evidence such as currently used assessment booklets. Qualitative responses from the variety of style of questions were gathered and interpreted (Litchman 2013). Using qualitative methods to explain any quantitative results obtained (Morrison, 2012; Litchman, 2013) nominated mixed methods (Cohen et al., 2011; Litchman, 2013).

This integrates the critical aspects of the classroom setting through the examination of different dynamic attributes in Key Stage 3 classroom. This will be imperative in underlining the main methods needed in developing the critical scope and changes needed within the specific systems that are identified. Data collection was initially done with a year nine class comprising of 27 students. The questions were focused on computational thinking and style of assessments used computational thinking. Most of the questions have a section allowing the participants to justify their responses. They were principally open-ended questions. I have received a very good response from the participants. Only 2 decided not to take part. The questionnaire was done anonymously. Therefore, participants were not required to disclose their identity. Although I am concerned that bias could occur due to where their responses to the questionnaire in my presence, I am aware that participants might feel intimidated and provide an answer to please me, I, therefore, decided to let another teacher in the room to remain more visible. Data were collected until saturation was achieved. Triangulation of the opinions provided by the students was also reached through comparison with the workbook that was available to them.

Initial analysis of the data from the questionnaire and interview helped clarify few concerns a misconception arise when asked to define computational thinking in their terms, students assign computational thinking to the way Computers think, but they did not think that computational thinking is applied to themselves. It is good to consider that this is not a set class and that we have a mixed ability group. In the survey, participants were requested to define computational thinking from their perspective. The answers obtained were varied although a basic trend was found among the participants where 33% of the participants’ answers in the study demonstrated a trend that perceived computational thinking as a process or procedure of solving problems.

Moreover, their responses used very specific examples and terminologies such as process or procedure of solving problems or procedure of solving problems with the help of algorithms. 20 % of the respondents said they knew nothing concerning computational thinking. The 33% of participants’ responses showed trends concerning computational thinking as the application of computer technologies to make work easier and solve problems. No participant claimed that technology and computers must be completely involved in defining computational thinking. In other words, most of the respondents identified the connection between computational thinking and problem solving after acquiring the computational thinking (CT) module.

Policy proposal

The policy is a result of my key findings generated from the data collection and the grounded theory approach (Glasser & Strauss, 1967) with the huge impartiality from my part.

As a result, my recommendations will be as follow:

1. Considering that we have a mixed ability group in year nine, there should be a review of the current assessment booklet towards a well-structured and tailored assessment booklet for the year nine in computational thinking tools.

2. Besides introducing of deep learning session for the year nine group.

I will decorticate each proposal in relation to my findings with the results from the questionnaire received as follow: Baron and Darling-Hammond (2008) contend that robust assessments for meaningful learning must include: intellectually ambitious performance assessments that require application of desired concepts and skills in disciplined ways; rubrics that define what constitutes good work and frequent formative assessments to guide feedback to students and teachers instructional decisions. However, currently all year nine students are working through a generic ready-made assessment booklet taken from the internet which does not acknowledge enough the cognitive, intra-personal and interpersonal dimensions of learning. A well designed multiple-choice assessment which can be used to further the students' understanding and to provide students feedback and explanations rather than simply testing. The current assessment booklet highlights some shortcomings; looking at students created programs alone provides an inaccurate sense of student’s computational competencies (Brennan & Resnick, 2012).

Change Theory

Evidence shows that both public education and society have been evolving since it started and that efforts of reform continue to cause that evolution. Efforts of reform which do not deal with reform from a systemic perspective have certainly overwhelmed institutions of public education (Burke, 2017). According to Ravitch (2004), the failure that is being seen in many efforts of reforms is caused by a lack of innovation in schools where the reforms were introduced. There are different theories which approach systematic change in educational institutions varying from methods, models, strategies, and philosophies (Burke, 2017). This individual said that educational institutions wishing to cause a systemic change need to employ a theory which will create conditions that can allow for such a change. Burke (2017) said that these conditions include a holistic, ideal, user-friendly, continuing, emancipatory and easy to improve or unjust to allow effective change to take place. Schools usually utilise three change theories. These include the round table theory, the free market theory, and the institutional theory.

Institutional Change theory

This theory was developed by John Meyer and his colleagues (Huerta and Zuckerman, 2009). This approach is a framework which is based on the connection between a school and its cultural environment (Mahoney and Thelen, 2010). The society’s cultural norms determine the organisation structure by encouraging schools to align or conform to the rituals and rules that are accepted. Mahoney and Thelen (2010) says that this theory emphasises the influence which a firm’s cultural environment has on organisation’s behaviour and structure and looks to understand the manner that cultural rules from the organisation’s environment constraints or shapes the actions of an organisation (Mahoney and Thelen, 2010). Established institutions which are operating with rituals and rules now not only represent what is regarded as legitimate schooling but have also become models admired by other institutions looking for legitimacy (Tina Dacin, Goodstein and Richard Scott, 2002). However, not all organisations wish to maintain the existing status quo and are limited or constrained by institutional and social norms. According to Tina Dacin, Goodstein and Richard Scott (2002) gave instances where charter schools were attempting to break from the established organisational or institutional patterns of learning and teaching. The public schools' system institutionalisation has provided limitations and directions concurrently.

The free market theory

Pack and Westphal (1986) said that the free market theory suggests that change in educational systems takes place when schools compete against each other for excellence. The assumption that all educational institutions start with the same or equal opportunity to acquire excellence is desirable to the school choice proponents as it justifies removing their children from schools that are failing to those greater successes. This theory leaves the blame of failure with school districts. According to Pack and Westphal (1986) federal regulations make it difficult for learning institutions to become recognised free markets, causing a failure in this theory in educational change. Pack and Westphal (1986) deduced that the system of the free market, if possible to establish in public schools, can fail to cause substantial change because of the features if the free market system can fail to create a conducive environment to allow change.

Roundtable Theory

This is also a leadership theory for change in schools. Connell and Klem (2000) elaborated that this theory distributes learning and leadership across participants equally. The theory involves stakeholders in the process of decision-making via shared leadership and usually results in high commitment levels. According to Connell and Klem (2000), an ideal roundtable theory practise is being run depending on a leader’s guide which is created by a consensus and reviewed periodically. The roundtable theory sessions would thus include a review and reading of available literature on a particular topic. During the session, participants respond uninterrupted by others where all have an equal opportunity and voice. This change theory focuses positively on strengths instead of problems making it an ideal choice for creating change in a school. The roundtable theory has been described based on creating an ideal state including all of the firm’s stakeholders and being carried out during regular school days. It is, therefore, a continuous process that allows schools to move towards excellence. It is noted by Connell. and Kubisch, (1998) that the roundtable theory is a research-based approach that can be used to lead an institution towards goal attainment and self-transformation. Change usually affects staff members regardless of the adopted theory or the proposed change. According to Powers (2004), one very challenging aspect of enacting reform in a school is creating a balance between the individual flexibility of teachers and the program implementation. Powers (2004) noted the need to empower teachers by treating them with respect as professionals as well as providing them a continued and structured support to minimize the adverse effects of change in a school. Powers (2004) argue that new organisational constructs might be applied which can account for theory and its use to transform a change policy. Furthermore, the choice of a school change can go past the control of the administration, the school district and the practitioners who will be affected.

Benefits of Computational Thinking

Computational thinking is important as a skill that can be taught in schools and has been recognised by several researchers. Wing (2006) argues that past the tertiary sector, computational thinking should also be learned by everybody else. Wing (2006) says that computational thinking as a skill is vital. She equates its importance that of basic arithmetic, writing and reading. For these reasons, computational thinking is acquiring momentum and many computer science departments in universities changing their curriculum to pay more attention to basic concepts and principles of computer science instead of having programming as their major focus. There is currently some effort to bring the fundamentals of computational thinking to secondary and primary schools at suitable complexity levels. This move is evident in activities such as when Microsoft and Google Companies gave Carnegie Mellon University several million US dollars as a grant to establish a computational thinking research centre in 2007. In 2006, the Google Company started Computer Science for High Schools (CS4HS) workshops at the same university which was open to all high school teachers to demonstrate to these practitioners emerging technologies as well as new energetic techniques to introduce computational thinking and computer science at secondary and primary schools. Since 2006 through 2010, the CS4HS program had spread to 34 tertiary educational institutes worldwide. The programme is now among the largest workshops that target introducing computational thinking in learning institutions (Blum and Cortina, 2007).

Google also started an online platform or website as its educational program extension in 2010 which targeted enhancing computational thinking as well as providing several links to other web-based resources at both secondary and tertiary education. Another example of a computational thinking program was started in New Zealand known as ‘’work by Bell et al. (2009), Fellows and Witten in creating Computer Science Unplugged’’. The website targeted offering training on K-12 principles of computer science without a computer. Bell et al. (2009) say that computational terms can be effectively understood when students can seem them demonstrated effectively in areas they already know. Teachers thus need to constantly assess areas which they can show the application of analogy and computational terminology. Students need to perceive computer science as a broad field and the beginning of a thinking branch instead of just programming. They need to view it as something which can be applied to solve numerous problems in many areas. Numerous benefits can be ripped from computational thinking in secondary schools. It is claimed that computational thinking can provide students with more tools beyond technology literacy or the basic knowledge of how to apply computers in day to day activities. It makes students capable of becoming effective solvers of problems for circumstances which are past the realm of computer science and encourages them to develop tools of problem-solving instead of using already existing applications (Phillips, 2007). Therefore, computational thinking is a technique or skills which require to be developed in future generations. According to Grover and Pea (2013), there are significant developments in learning of computer science in elementary schools with languages of programming like Scratch, Kodu, and Alice and MIT’s App Inventor which allows students to build working apps and programmes very quickly.

Even with the mentioned advantage above in obtaining programming skills, the extent of the conceptual knowledge and skills obtained using such tools can still be questioners particularly the extent that students can learn skills of computational thinking. An individual known as Grover and Pea (2013) drew from his first-hand experience in training high school students various exercises and principles of computation such as the App Inventor, robotics and Scratch. He found the need to focus on how to create solutions and the reason why several solutions are more effective and suitable as compared to others, instead of just learning the syntax of coding of a certain language. The individual encourages practitioners and students to go past the programming language tools for getting quick solutions and instead use the learning ability of students as well as their creativity to harness important skills of computational thinking. A deeper knowledge and understanding of problem-solving using computational skills are more important as compared to exploring tools without realizing the tools’ full potential. There is a need for professionals especially teaching professionals of computer science to promote computational thinking at all levels.

Feasibility of the study

The 21st century has seen increased and fast technological development in many aspects of the world’s day to day lives. Appropriately, there is a burgeoning expectation in the sector of education which is emerging for practitioners to be familiar with the latest 21st-century skills which are grounded basically in the capacity to apply digital technology techniques for pedagogical reasons (Bullock, 2013). Furthermore, government rhetoric shows that technological experiences are important in establishing a highly skilled workforce and the prosperity of the economy (Schools, 2015). The challenges seen in incorporating technology in learning and teaching are also linked to research in the field of self-efficacy, confidence and capacity as well as the need to transform skills between professional and personal use into experiences of learning (Bennet, Maton and Kervin, 2008). Therefore, it is important to understand the various factors which influence technological integration in teaching. This has attracted a lot of research in this area. The self-efficacy beliefs of teachers toward the integration of technology are now considered an important factor which affects practitioners’ technology integration in their daily practise (Wang et al., 2004). These are the reasons which make teaching and learning computational thinking feasible to study in basic and tertiary education.

Monitoring Arrangements and Success Criteria

Wolz, Hallberg, and Taylor (2011) discussed a researcher from the New Jersey who developed a technique of visualisation program known as Scrape which can be used to analyse programming blocks in a Scratch project. The first approach which will be used to assess the progress of computational thinking in this research will involve a Scrape Tool known as the User Analysis to evaluate a project’s portfolio which is uploaded by a participant in the research and produce a visual representation of the used blocks or the blocks which are not used in each project. An analysis of each member’s portfolio will be conducted of their online profile which shows their creation and other dimensions of their participation. Another monitoring arrangement will include artefact-based interviews where the scratchers' online project portfolios will be studied by inviting many questions (Juuti and Lavonen, 2012). The questions will allow the research to create direct conversations with the participants. The approach of assessing the success of computational thinking development with the help of artefact-based interviews will range between 1 to 2 hours. The interview procedure will be organised in four main sections. The first section will include the current practises. The current practises will include obtaining answers for issues like the things they do with the program, where they use the program or whether other people help out in the use of the program. The other section will include project creation of framing where the participants in the assessment will be required to explain where they got the idea for their project, how they got started to make their project and the things which happened when they got stuck. The third section will introduce the online community and what they do online and if there is any other online community beyond the technology. It will also explain if there are any other things which is non-tech related which the participants like to carry out.

Another technique which will be used to assess computational practises and concepts include project creation. Here the research will need the participants to choose at least two projects which they find interesting to analyse and discuss. For every project, the participants will be asked about the history of their project and things that motivate them to develop such projects. Their projects will then be run to assess how they work. The creators of the projects will then be asked to discuss the development process of their projects. They will discuss how they started their computational thinking project, the evolution of their project during development, the important things they needed to know to make the project a success, the challenges they experienced in the entire process and how the managed those problems. This last approach will also be used to highlight the weakness in the portfolios of the block-based projects.

Barriers to Change

It is important for any institution to do a baseline assessment of an appropriate process which will help it to find actual and potential change barriers (Pichardo, Lowden, Farbaniec and Haidet, 2018). It is discovered that barriers will often lead to a gap between the current and recommended practises thus harming the day to day process of production in an organisation. To stop this from taking place, it is necessary to find the main change barriers and know how to avoid them. One institution has understood how to tackle these barriers; it will find it less complicated to plan as well as to implement a change process. The major change barriers include lack of involvement of the employees, the absence of an effective strategy of communication, a bad shift planning of culture, organisation complexity and an unknown current state (Pichardo‐Lowden, Farbaniec and Haidet, 2018). The lack of staff participation/involvement. This is one of the most common change barriers. Employees usually are afraid of change, and unless the organisation ensures that they take part in the process of change, it is possible that the change process will be resisted even with some of the most loyal members of staff (Lachman, Runnacles and Dudley, 2015). The main mistake which some institutions make is failing to engage their staff in the process of change. Fearing the unknown is thus spiked, and then the employees lack the desires or need to embrace change or new culture thus establishing a barrier to the change process. The effort to create a successful change can only be achieved when employees are significantly involved in the process. Employees can be involved in the process of change by taking note of their views, accounting for their efforts as well as assuring them the change will have positive results and will affect them positively (Lachman, Runnacles and Dudley, 2015).

Moreover, they can be involved by offering them sufficient and relevant resources to show them that the change is necessary and to make them ready and comfortable to adjust towards the new shift or developments in the institution (Parris et al., 2016). The lack of an effective strategy of communication is another change barrier. Some institutions lack an effective strategy of communication where their top leaders often assume that they after they have announced a change process, the employees will adjust and become ready to embrace the new changes and development. Another barrier is bad planning in a culture shift. Sometimes, the team that is planning the change process may have absolutely no idea of how people will be affected by the change. This kind of team only focuses on planning their administrative structure, work area duties job responsibilities and job reporting structure. Usually, this type of team will not make decisions based on intuitions and feelings (Parris et al., 2016).

They thus overlook the way people feel. Breaking this type of barrier needs changing how the planning team understands employee’s feelings and that this should not be overlooked. The institution also needs to prevent serious resentments that usually emerge because of the disrespect of traditions and taboos at the place of work. Therefore, when concentrating on objective analysis and critical thinking, it is necessary to consider employees’ feelings to overcome the barrier to change (Hess and Draper, 2017). Another barrier to change is an unknown current situation/state. Change is usually challenging for firms which do not understand their current situation. Attempts to introduce as well as implement change when an assessment of the current situation of an organisation is a common feature in many entities (Hess and Draper, 2017). These entities fail to realise that failing to analyse its current status can result in a barrier to new changes they wish to introduce or implement. Going around this barrier requires a firm to fully understand their current status by analysing their current blueprint before introducing any new change. Once the leadership of an institution has properly understood their current status, it gets easier to plan as well as implement change (Hess and Draper, 2017). Another barrier to change is as a result of an organisation’s complexity. There are times when an institution starts to develop sophisticated processes that make the planning of change and its implementation more complex (Töytäri et al., 2017). The complexities are caused by sophisticated processes, systems, and products that add to the barrier as they are usually difficult to understand. It is thus necessary for an institution to break this type of barrier through introducing a skilful and keen approach to deal with the fast growth and the complexity of the organisation. This theory can also be broken by employing quality, diligent and very effective change and project management approach. It is also important never to handle change that is extremely complex for a firm. Furthermore, it is not feasible to introduce and attempt to implement sophisticated change when an organisation still do not have the maturity to deal with such a complex change process (Töytäri et al., 2017).

Conclusion

Computational thinking is slowly taking root within computer science in the learning and education sector and beyond. However, there is a need for great strides before it gets institutionalised. One important area is training teachers to acquire professional development in computational thinking. It is apparent that once an institution has properly understood the barriers to the change they wish to manage, it will become easier for them to implement the process of change. Eventually, the entire staff will embrace the change to be introduced as they will have become more comfortable.

References

Bennett, S., Maton, K. and Kervin, L., 2008. The ‘digital natives’ debate: A critical review of the evidence. British journal of educational technology, 39(5), pp.775-786.

Blum, L. and Cortina, T.J., 2007. CS4HS: an outreach program for high school CS teachers. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 39(1), pp.19-23.

Bottery, M. (2004) ‘The Impact of Standardisation and Control’, in The Challenges of Educational Leadership. London: Sage.

Bullock, E.C., 2013. An archaeological/genealogical historical analysis of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics standards documents.

Connell, J. and Klem, A., 2000. You can get there from here: Using a theory of change approach to plan urban education reform. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 11(1), pp.93-120.

Connell, J.P. and Kubisch, A.C., 1998. Applying a theory of change approach to the evaluation of comprehensive community initiatives: progress, prospects, and problems. New approaches to evaluating community initiatives, 2(15-44), pp.1-16.

Dempster (eds.) (2009) Connecting Leadership and Learning: Principles for Practice, London: Routledge, pp. 20-31.

Fisher, T. (2011) ‘Considering the big picture’, Educational Review, Vol. 63, No. 4, November 2011, pp.445-465.

Grover, S. and Pea, R., 2013. Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational researcher, 42(1), pp.38-43.

Hargreaves, D. (2007) ‘Teaching as a research based profession: possibilities and prospects (The Teacher Training Agency Lecture 1996) in M. Hammersley (ed.) (2007) Educational Research and Evidence-Based Practice, Milton Keynes: The Open University Press, pp. 4-17

Hess, J.Z. and Draper, S., 2017. Poison Apples, Big Bad Wolves and Other ‘Happy Ending Spoilers’: Overcoming Barriers to Enduring Change Following Youth Residential Treatment. Journal of Therapeutic Schools and Programs, 6(1), p.1687.

Juuti, K. and Lavonen, J., 2012. Design-based research in science education: One step towards methodology. Nordic studies in science education, 2(2), pp.54-68.

Lachman, P., Runnacles, J. and Dudley, J., 2015. Equipped: overcoming barriers to change to improve quality of care (theories of change). Archives of Disease in Childhood-Education and Practice, 100(1), pp.13-18.

Lichtman, M. (2013) ‘Introduction and Overview of the Field’, Qualitative Research in Education: A User’s Guide, London Sage, pp. 4-17

Mahoney, J. and Thelen, K., 2010. A theory of gradual institutional change. Explaining institutional change: Ambiguity, agency, and power, 1.

Pack, H. and Westphal, L.E., 1986. Industrial strategy and technological change: theory versus reality. Journal of development economics, 22(1), pp.87-128.

Parris, D.L., Bouchet, A., Welty Peachey, J. and Arnold, D., 2016. Change is hard: overcoming barriers to service innovation. Journal of Services Marketing, 30(6), pp.615-629.

Phillips, B., Travelocity Com LP, 2007. System, method, and computer program product for detecting and resolving pricing errors for products listed in an inventory system. U.S. Patent Application 11/224,164.

Pichardo‐Lowden, A., Farbaniec, M. and Haidet, P., 2018. Overcoming barriers to diabetes care in the hospital: The power of qualitative observations to promote positive change. Journal of evaluation in clinical practice.

Ravitch, D., 2004. Recycling reforms: the US Department of Education has created an office in charge of funding innovation. Can we avoid the mistakes of the past? Education Next, 4(1), pp.34-41.

Tina Dacin, M., Goodstein, J. and Richard Scott, W., 2002. Institutional theory and institutional change: Introduction to the special research forum. Academy of management journal, 45(1), pp.45-56.

Wang, Y., Widrow, B., Zadeh, L.A., Howard, N., Wood, S., Bhavsar, V.C., Budin, G., Chan, C., Fiorini, R.A., Gavrilova, M.L. and Shell, D.F., 2016. Cognitive intelligence: Deep learning, thinking, and reasoning by brain-inspired systems. International Journal of Cognitive Informatics and Natural Intelligence (IJCINI), 10(4), pp.1-20.

West-Burnham, J., Farrar, M. and Otero, G. (2007) ‘Change and complexity in communities’ in Schools and Communities, London: Continuum, pp.155 – 265

Wolz, U., Hallberg, C. and Taylor, B., 2011, March. Scrape: A tool for visualizing the code of Scratch programs. In Poster presented at the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Dallas, TX.