embodying and programming a “constellation” of multimodal...

JournalofLanguageandLiteracyEducationVol.11Issue2—Fall2015http://jolle.coe.uga.edu

EmbodyingandProgramminga“Constellation”of

MultimodalLiteracyPractices:ComputationalThinking,CreativeMovement,Biology,&

VirtualEnvironmentInteractions

AlisonE.LeonardNikeethaDsouzaSabarishV.BabuShaundraB.Daily

SophieJörgCynthiaWaddellDhavalParmarKaraGundersenJordanGestringKevinBoggs

ABSTRACT:Mergingcomputationalthinkingandanembodiment-centeredcurriculum,VEnvI(VirtualEnvironmentInteractions)seekstoexpandtheprofessionalandacademicpossibilitiesforK-12studentsthroughopeninguppathwaysthatsynthesizeknowledgeacrossandthroughdigitalmedia,computerscience,andthearts.Thispaperpresentsfindingsfromacasestudyresearchinterventionwith5thgradestudentsatanartsmagnetschoolinasmallurbanmunicipalityintheSoutheasternUnitedStates.Thisresearchiterationispartofalarger,ongoingdesign-basedresearchproject,pioneeringthedesign,development,andtestingofavirtualenvironmentandassociatedcurriculumforblendingcreativemovementandcomputerprogrammingforupperelementaryandmiddleschoolstudents.Afterconductingquantitativeandqualitativeanalysis,researchersfoundstudents’computationalknowledgeimprovedthroughtheirengagementsina“constellation”ofmultimodalliteracypractices(Steinkuehler,2007,n.p.)duringtheprocessofchoreographingandprogrammingacomplimentaryvirtualcharacter’smovementsbasedona5thgradebiologystandardaboutcells.

Keywords:computationalthinking,creativemovement,embodiment,multimodality,literacy

JournalofLanguageandLiteracyEducationVol.11Issue2—Fall2015

65

Alison E. Leonard is the Assistant Professor of Arts & Creativity in the Eugene T. Moore School ofEducationatClemsonUniversity.SheholdsaPhDinCurriculumandInstructionfromtheUniversityofWisconsin-MadisonandanMAinPerformanceStudiesfromNewYorkUniversity.Herresearchinvolvesartseducation;specificallydanceineducationandembodiedformsofinquiryinschools.

NikeethaDsouzaisaPhDstudentinCurriculumandInstructionatClemsonUniversityintheEugeneT.MooreSchoolofEducation.

SabarishV.BabuisanAssistantProfessorintheSchoolofComputingatClemsonUniversity.Babu’sresearchinterestsareinthedesign,developmentandevaluationofvirtualrealitysystems,specificallyinthecreationofinteractivescenariosanduserstudiesinimmersivevirtualenvironmentsforeducationandtraining.Babuhasauthorsorco-authoredover60researchpublicationsinpeer-reviewedvenuesincludingACMandIEEEconferencesandjournals.

ShaundraB.DailyisanAssociateProfessorinDepartmentofComputer&InformationScience&EngineeringattheUniversityofFlorida.ShereceivedherdoctoratefromtheMassachusettsInstituteofTechnology.Herresearchinvolvesdesigningandimplementingtechnology-infusedcollaborativelearningenvironments,affectivecomputing,andSTEMeducation.

SophieJörgisanAssistantProfessorintheSchoolofComputingatClemsonUniversity.ShereceivedherPh.DfromTrinityCollegeDublin,IrelandandconductedresearchatFraunhoferIAIS,CarnegieMellonUniversity,andDisneyResearch,Pittsburgh.Herresearchrevolvesaroundcomputeranimation,virtualcharacters,perception,anddigitalgames.

CynthiaWaddelliscurrentlythedanceteacheratStoneAcademyofCommunicationArtsinGreenville,SC.SheholdsaMEdfromConverseCollegeandaBAindancefromColumbiaCollege.

Leonard,A.E.,Dsouza,N.,Babu,S.V.,Daily,S.B.,Jörg,S.,Waddell,C.,Parmar,D.,Gundersen,K.,Gestring,J.,

&Boggs,K.(2015)/EmbodyingandProgramminga“Constellation”

66

DhavalParmarisaPhDstudentinComputerScienceatClemsonUniversity.

KaraGundersenhasanMFAinDigitalProductionArtsfromClemsonUniversity,andisaPhDstudentinHumanCenteredComputingattheUniversityofFlorida.

JordanGestringisanMFACandidateintheDigitalProductionArtsprogramatClemsonUniversity.

KevinBoggsisanMFACandidateintheDigitalProductionArtsprogramatClemsonUniversity.


67

fter elevenweeksofworking together,weallgathered cross-legged on the floor to reflecton our experiences: an entire class of fifth-

grade students, their teacher, two researchers, andone graduate assistant. Following a discussion ofwhat the students enjoyed, what challenged them,and what they would change for next time, one ofthe researchers asked the group, “Do you thinkdancing and programming your dance made you abettercomputerprogrammer?”Onestudentreplied,“Yeah,becauseitmakesyouunderstandwhatyou’redoingonthecomputer...soyouknowwhatyou’redoingonthecomputer,andwhenyou’redancing, itmakes it easier‘causeyouknowtheactions.”Another student then explained,“I think it’s good that you chosedance instead of something elsebecauseit’ssomethingpeoplecanrelate to. You know how itworked in your own body, so itwas easier to transfer that intothe computer.” Essentially, thesestudents were describing theirembodiedlearningexperiencesofrepresenting knowledge inmultimodal ways. Little did the rest of the groupknow that both of the researchers at that momentwere having their own little silent, undetectable,internalcelebration—thekidscouldnothavestatedthegoalsofourresearchanybetter.Inthispaper,wepresentrecentfindingsfromacasestudy,whichisapartofour larger, iterativedesign-based research project called VEnvI (VirtualEnvironment Interactions). This project, whichstarted in2013, focuseson thedesign,development,and testing of a virtual environment and associatedcurriculum that utilize embodied approaches tosupportthedevelopmentofcomputationalthinking.Aswe develop the virtual environment,we are alsorevising the accompanying curriculum where weguide students through choreography andprogramming sessions during research iterations inschool, afterschool, andsummercampsettings.Theresearchiterationdiscussedinthispaperhashelpedus to continually revise our research, virtualenvironment,andcurriculardesign.Throughoutthisproject,wehypothesizethattheparallelprocessesof

choreographing a dance and programming acharacter in a virtual environment may be aninteractive and engaging context that appeals tostudentsnottypically interested inprogrammingbybroadening their perspectives on computingapplications. Likewise, we also believe thatprogrammingcanprovidemovementpossibilitiesforstudents not typically interested or comfortable intraditional dance settings. In conducting ourresearch, we ask the following questions: In whatways do students creating dance performances forvirtual characters use their bodies and embodied

ways of thinking to workthrough the actuation ofprogramming choreographyonto virtual characters?How do these interactionssupport the students’knowledge ofcomputational concepts,utilizationofcomputationalpractices, and developmentof computationalperspectives?We found that the processof choreographing a dance

and programming a complimentary virtualcharacter’s dance based on curricular contentafforded the students opportunities to engage in avariety of interrelated literacy practices—a“constellation”ofmultimodalliteracypracticesusingvarious forms of text (written, spoken, movement,and computer programming) (Steinkuehler, 2007,n.p.). Steinkuehler (2007) describes multimodalliteracy practices involving reading, writing,speaking, and gaming in her study of MassivelyMultiplayer Online Games (MMOGs) as aconstellation of literacy practices. We takeinspiration from Steinkuehler’s work. Similarly, forour student participants, their programming andembodying of multimodal literacy practices formedan assemblage—a constellation—of their meaningmakingandknowledgeduringthiscasestudy.

TheoreticalPerspectivesWeviewliteracyandbeingliterateinbothexpansiveandnuancedways that encompass reading,writing,andspeaking,usingamyriadofcombinationsoftext

A

“Ithinkit’sgoodthatyouchosedanceinsteadof

somethingelsebecauseit’ssomethingpeoplecanrelate

to.Youknowhowitworkedinyourownbody,soitwaseasier

totransferthatintothecomputer.”



68

that include thewritten, read, and spokenword, aswellasotherformsofaestheticsandsemiotictexts—soundandmusic,imageryandvisuals,digitalforms,andthroughthebody(Leonard,Hall,&Herro,2015;Foster,1995;Jones,2013).WecalluponthelegacyoftheNewLondonGroup’s(1996)definitionofliteracyas plural literacies that are inherently multimodal,tiedtosemioticsystemsandcontextuallysituatedin“a community of practice that renders that systemmeaningful” (Steinkuehler, 2010, p. 300). Thesesemioticsystemsarecomprisedofdiscourse.OneofthemembersoftheNewLondonGroup,Gee(2008;2011; 2014) refers to “little ‘d’ discourse” ascommunication, expression, and “language-in-use”and the “big ‘D’ Discourse” as the networks,identities, and communities of practice’s languagewithin particular group and context. The discourseutilizedwithin aDiscourse (d/Discourse) also relieson distinct yet relational knowledge from thestudents’ lives—their homes, school, peer groups,and commercial media (Gonzalez, Moll, & Amanti,2005;Mojeetal.,2004).MultimodalitySpecifically, we highlight the complex andintertwining scope of multimodality and literacy.Multimodalityentailsrepresentationandintegrationacross varied aesthetic forms—print, visual, audio,gestural, and spatial—and in their varied forms,these representations remain integral to meaningmakingandcommunication(Cope&Kalantzis,2000;Jewitt, Kress, Ogborn, & Tsatsarelis, 2000; NewLondonGroup,1996;Seglem,Witte,&Beemer,2012).Engaginginmultimodalliteracypracticesmeansthatone is able to decipher meaning across differentmodes and can make choices based on theaffordances and limitations of available modes inorder to communicate and represent knowledge(Steinkuehler,2010).The process of reconstructing knowledge andmeaning through the transfer of content betweencommunication systems is referred to as eithertransmediation (Siegel, 1995), transferring acrossmedia, or transduction, acrossmodes (Kress, 2003).This process allows for the gaining of new insight

into knowledge through its reconstruction throughanother form (Albers, Holbrook, & Harste, 2010;Leonard et al., 2015; Hoyt 1992). While one mighttransmediate from writing using the media of penand paper to writing using digital media, one cantransduct from writing to drawing since both aredifferentmodesofcommunicationeventhoughtheymay use the same media (Mavers, 2015). Here, wewillmostcommonlyrefertotransmediationbecausewe are discussing the reconstruction of knowledgebetweenmedia,i.e.fromspokentexttodance.ComputationalThinkingThe Discourses of computer science andprogramming as disciplinary and professional fieldshave their own conventions, cultures, and ways ofcommunicating. Literacy and literacy practices aredefined in multiple ways within these Discourses.Computer literacy includes the ability to boot up acomputer,useamouseandkeyboard,andworkwithbasic computer programs. Computational literacythenisthewidesetofpracticesassociatedwithusingcomputationalmedia inour everyday lives (diSessa,2000). Of interest in this research is what diSessarefers to as a “cognitive pillar” of literacy—computational thinking—which involves the abilityto harness the power of computers to solveproblems. According to Wing (2006) whopopularized the term, “computational thinkinginvolves solving problems, designing systems, andunderstanding human behavior, by drawing on theconcepts fundamental to computer science.Computational thinking includes a range ofmentaltoolsthatreflectthebreadthofthefieldofcomputerscience” (p. 33). As a result, although the goal ofteachingcomputationalthinkingisnotnecessarilytohaveallstudentsbecomeprogrammers,thinkinglikea programmer involves habits of mind andd/Discourses (Gee, 2008) that are useful to a broadrange of fields. In this research, we viewcomputational thinking as a set of concepts(sequences, loops, conditionals, parallelism1),practices (iterating and reusing2), and perspectives(seeingcomputingasa tool forself-expression) thatdraw upon the world of computing and remainapplicableacrossmultipledisciplinesinthesciences

1Sequencesdenote theorder of things; loops are repeatedsequences;conditionalsarewhensequencesareperformedundera setofparametersorconditions;andparallelismdenotessequencesofinstructionsthatarehappeninginparallel.

2Iteratinginvolvesrepeatingstepsuntilaconditionismet;reusinginvolvesbuildingontheworkofotherstocreateyourowncode.


69

and with digital media (Daily, Leonard, Jörg, Babu,Gundersen, & Parmar, 2015; Brennan & Resnick,2012a;2012b).A review of very early work in the field suggestedthat children who participate in computerprogramming typically score around sixteen pointshigher on various cognitive ability assessments ascompared to children who did not (Liao & Bright,1991). A study by Clements et al. (2001) showedcomparable results onmathematics, reasoning, andproblem-solving tests for students programmingwithLogo—anearlylanguagedevelopedbySeymourPapert.Others have shown that students can applycore computational thinking concepts in otheraspects of their lives after engaging withprogramming environments like Scratch orprogramming robots (e.g. Bers & Horn 2010;Mioduseretal.2009;Resnick2009).DanceandEmbodimentWithinthed/Discoursesofthefieldsofdance,danceeducation, and other scholarly domains that studyembodied practices, such as dance and movement,literacy involves communication of, about, andthrough the body. Dance consistently utilizes andunites “multiliteracies about visual meaning,auditory meaning, spatial meaning, gesturalmeaning, linguistic meaning, and multimodalpatterns of meaning that are combinations of thesemiotic modes” (Curran, Gingrasso, Megill, &Heiland, 2011, p. 36). Embodied literacies are alsoreferredtoasthoseliteraciesthatareperformedandembedded within the body with dance being anobvious form. As an embodied literacy, gesturemerges meaning and the content being expressedthrough a nod or movement of the hands whilespeaking(Frambaugh-Kritzer,Buelow,&Steele,2015;Jones, 2013). However, dance also has its ownsemiotic system of signs, symbols, codes, andlanguagerelatedtoorofthebody.Anydiscussionofdance as literacy, being literate in the elements ofdance (body, space, time, effort/force), techniques,and/ordiscourseinvolvesembodiedwaysofthinkingand being literate (Curran et al., 2011; Dils, 2007).Therefore,danceandthedancingbodyitselfbecomeaformoftextinmultimodalliteracy,andevenmore,the dancing body becomes the writer, speaker, and

reader and also the written, spoken, and read(Leonardetal.,2015;Foster,1995). Although theories of embodiment and embodiedwaysofthinkinghavelongbeenwelcomedindanceand arts education and research (Block & Kissell,2001; Bresler, 2004; Dils, 2007; Hanna, 2008; 2014;Leavy, 2015;Warburton, 2011), looking at embodiedcognition (Wilson, 2002) as essential in inquiry,learning, and expression in schools has receivedrecent and renewed attention as effective inmathematics (Drodge & Reid, 2000), physics (Lu,Kang, Huang, & Black, 2011), geology (Tolentino etal.,2009),Chinesecharacters(Lu,Hallman,&Black,2013), health (Johnson-Glenberg et al. 2013), andcomputational thinking (Daily et al., 2015; Fadjo,Harris, & Black, 2009). Links among embodiedcognition, computer programming, and educationalsobuildupontheworkofPapert(1993),whofoundstudents’ learning and understanding ofmathematical concepts when programming to bemore efficient when their active engagements withthisknowledgewereassociatedwiththeirknowledgeof self, culture, and the body—that the knowledgewassyntonic,relatedtothelearner’sunderstanding.

ProjectDesignandDevelopmentThe overarching goal of VEnvI is to develop anoriginal virtual environment and curriculum thatblendsmovement and computerprogrammingwitha goal of increasing participation and interest ofmiddle-school students in computer science.Providing a specially designed and engagingway tocultivate computational thinking, this virtualenvironment will allow users to move fromchoreographing in the physical world toprogramming a virtual character to perform theirchoreographyinthevirtualworld.Finally,ouraimisthatthroughanassociatedandembodiedcurriculuminthevirtualenvironmentthatuserswillbeabletoengageandperformwiththeirvirtualcharacter.Inorder to create thisdesktopvirtual environment,we are conducting research with students andteachers through iterative analysis, design,development, and implementation cycles (Daily etal.,2015;Wang&Hannafin,2005).Inordertoinformour technological and curricular design of this new



70

virtual environment, our teamhas been conductingongoing, design-based research iterations usingexistingprograms,suchasAlicebyCarnegieMellon(Cooper,Dann, & Pausch, 2000) and LookingGlassbyWashingtonUniversity (Gross et al., 2010). Bothof these environments allow users to programmovements of a character but, in addition to usingunrealistic,lowqualityrenderedmovements,neitheris accompanied by an embodied curriculum or isdesigned specifically for dance choreography. Forexample, LookingGlass allowsusers ages 10 andupto create and share animated stories, games, andvirtualcharacters,notnecessarilydance(Grossetal.,2010). Therefore, to create higher quality, realisticdance motions, we are using a 14-camera Viconopticalmotioncapturesystemtoallowus to recordaccurately even the small subtleties of a dancer’smovements.Basedonmotioncapturedatacollectedfrom the retro-reflective markers attached to anactual dancer’s body, we are computing theassociated joint rotations and transferring theseresults toavirtualcharacter (Leonard&Daily,2013;Daily et al., 2014). See Figure 1 for a comparisonbetween Looking Glass and a beta version of whatour program might look like. A video comparisoncan be found at this link. The first clip shows acharacter created in Looking Glass performing theCha-chaSlide.ThesecondclipisanearlyversionofVEnvI. While neither clip perfects the dance, thesecond is working at coming closer to realisticmovement.Any technical issues are currently beingworkedoutwithinourdesign.

Figure1.Acomparisonbetweenanexistingprogram,LookingGlass,anda beta version of our virtual environment,VEnvI (Virtual EnvironmentInteractions).Onthe left,acharacter fromLookingGlass isperformingtheCha-chaSlide.Ontheright,abetaversionofourenvironmentshowsacharacterperformingthesamestepfromtheCha-ChaSlide;theVEnvImovementshavebeencreatedthroughmotioncapture.

Methodology

AswearedesigningVEnvI,weare conductingpilotresearchiterationsusingexistingprogramsandsmallsamples of students in various settings: after schoolprograms, science and technology-focused summercamps,andmostrecentlyanin-schoolscenario—thedance class at the arts magnet school. For thisongoing research, we are utilizing a design-basedresearch (DBR) approach, a paradigm for studyinglearning in a context through the systematic designand study of instructional strategies. Relying onextensive descriptions, systematic analysis of data,consensus-building within the field aroundinterpretations of data, DBR utilizes reliable andvalidated techniques used in other researchparadigmstorefineboththeoryandpractice(Brown,1992;Design-BasedResearchCollective,2003). Additionally, we are utilizing the data collectionmethodology of participation observation (Tedlock,2008) since our DBR approach requires theintroduction of teaching computer programming,often not part of the formal school curriculum forelementaryormiddle-schoolstudents,andmergingit with dance and the choreographic process.Therefore, we as the researchers led the facilitationoftheactivitiesinbothcomputerprogrammingandchoreography,aswell as collected the researchdatawith the dance instructor supporting us. Forexample, she provided consistency for her studentsthrough leading one of her regular warm-ups withthe students each day before we began. Our pilotresearch iterations also stand as research andcurricular interventions, augmenting the students’typical school experiences (Lancy, 1993). Eachiteration stands as what Stake (2008) calls aninstrumental case study, one that provides insightinto other similar or future programs andexperiences,providinggeneralizabilityofexperience(Lancy, 1993). These generalizations and casefindings can then be used to inform our virtualenvironment design, as well as the research andcurriculardesignforfuturedatacollection.ResearchSiteSince the inception of this project, our team hasparticipated in a local arts fair occurring over threedays each spring. During one of these outreach


71

sessions, a parent who was excited about bringingSTEAM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts +Design, & Mathematics) into her school suggestedthatweworkwithaK-5publicartsmagnetschoolina small urban municipality in the SoutheasternUnitedStates.Afterconversationswiththeprincipal,arts teacher,andmagnetcoordinator,a relationshipensued.The city’s schooldistrict serves over 70,000students according to 2013-2014 school recordsaccessed via their district website. The artsmagnetschool serves over 600 K-5 students (69% from adowntownneighborhoodassignedtotheschooland31% from across the district who apply forattendance). Of the school’s population, 70% areWhite, 20%areAfricanAmerican, 5%areHispanic,<1%areAsian,andtheremainderreportedasother.Of the students in grades 3-5, 40% are served in aGifted and Talented Program, and 26% receiveFree/Reduced Lunch. The school boasts a robustgeneral education curriculum strengthened by art,music, dance, drama, technology, writing, andphysical education. Every week students attend“relatedarts”classesinart,music,drama,anddance.During this study, we worked with two sections ofGrade5.Therewere44studentstotalintheclasses,but only 41 participated in the research, 27 femalesand 14males.The students self-identified their raceon a biographical survey. These consisted of 32White,7AfricanAmerican, 1Asian,and4identifiedas“otherrace/ethnicity”butdidnotspecify.

Procedures. For eleven weeks, our teamfacilitated programming and choreography sessionswith the two classes of fifth-grade students duringtheir45-minuteweeklydanceclass.Weworkedwithoneclassof22studentsonMondayand20studentson Friday. During these sessions, we began with aphysical warm-up, followed by concentrated wholeandsmallgroupworkrelated tocreativemovementandchoreographingadanceinspiredbythepartsofa cell, including its cell membrane, nucleus,cytoplasm,andvacuoles3.Cellswerechosenper therequest of the grade-level teachers who wereinterestedincross-curricularconnectionsthatcouldbemadewhileprogrammingadance.Theychose

thiscurriculumstandardsince,althoughthey touchupon the subject matter, they do not have time tocoveritindepth.We then moved to programming complementarychoreography onto one or two characters using theintroductory programming platform, Looking Glass(Gross, Herstand, Hodges, & Kelleher, 2010) (Video2). Looking Glass (Figure 2) is designed to enableusers to create 3D animated stories using drag anddrop graphical blocks that represent programmingconstructs.InLookingGlass,studentscanutilizethecomputational concepts and practices mentionedpreviouslytocreateinteractivestories.

Figure 2. Screenshot of Looking Glass. On the left is an example of avirtual character, and on the right is the “My Story” workspace wherestudentsdraganddropactionsandactionorders.

Whenwe firstmetwith the students, they had notyetexploredthismaterial intheirgeneraleducationclassrooms. To introduce the students to thestructure and function of cells, we first re-createdand embodied a cell and its basic structures of thecell membrane, nucleus, cytoplasm, and vacuolesusingourbodies.Standinginacircle,weenactedthecell membrane’s semi-permeable function ofallowingnutrientsintothecellandblockingharmfulelementsfromenteringbyhavingstudentsphysicallyactingoutthesescenarios.Wecontinuedtoexplorethis content physically for the nucleus, cytoplasm,and vacuoles. Additionally, one of the researcherswith an extensive background in dance educationchoreographed a dance that accompanied anoriginally composed poem explaining the cell, itsstructure, and function. The students learned thispoemanditsmovements(Figure3),andtheseinitialmovements served as the inspiration for their owncell dances. Working in dyads, the studentschoreographedtheirowncelldancestorepresentthe

3Thefunctionofcellsandtheirstructures,includingcellmembrance,nucleuas,cytoplasm,andvacuolesarepartofthestatesciencestandardsfor5thgradeinthisschool.



72

conceptofacellanditsfourstructuresasoutlinedinthestandards.Theywere invitedtoutilizethesamemovements from the poem or to create their owninspiredbythefunctionofeachcellpart.Aspartofthe school’s dance curriculum, the students werewell versed in creative movement, choreographing,rehearsing, and performing short dance sequencesontheirown,usingbasicchoreographicelementsoftheme and variation (creating a basic movementtheme and creating variations on that theme),repetition (the use of repeated actions), unison(performing together with others), and cannon(performing in delayed succession with others),alongwithcreatingpurposefulmovementtransitionstoflowfromonemovementtothenext.Theoriginalcellpoemisasfollows:Iamacell.IamthebasicunitoflifeIamacell.IamthebasicunitoflifeImakeupalllivingthingsImakeupalllivingthingsIamacell.IamthesmallestunitoflifeIamacell.IamthesmallestunitoflifeI have a cell membrane that separates my outsidefrommy“in”I have a cell membrane that separates my outsidefrommy“in”Mycellmembraneissemi-permeableMycellmembraneissemi-permeableIt is the fence to keep what I need in; it is theboundarytokeepwhatIdon’tneedoutIt is the fence to keep what I need in; it is theboundarytokeepwhatIdon’tneedoutIamfilledwithcytoplasm,myjelly-likeinsidesIamfilledwithcytoplasm,myjelly-likeinsidesCytoplasm flows inside, and moves with mewhereverIgoCytoplasm flows inside, and moves with mewhereverIgoInside is my nucleus, the power center, controllingthewholeoperationInside is my nucleus, the power center, controllingthewholeoperationMy nucleus is like my brain; it stores all I need tosurviveandregenerate

My nucleus is like my brain; it stores all I need tosurviveandregenerateSome cellshave vacuoles to store all their stuff andeventheirwasteSome cellshave vacuoles to store all their stuff andeventheirwasteVacuoles are like the their closet, cubby, andwastebinVacuoles are like the their closet, cubby, andwastebinIamacell.IamthebasicunitoflifeIamacell.IamthebasicunitoflifeImakeupalllivingthingsImakeupalllivingthingsIamacell.IamthesmallestunitoflifeIamacell.Iamthesmallestunitoflife

Figure3.Studentsperformingcellpoem.Herethestudentsareperformingthecellmovementsforthenucleus,“thepowercenter”toaccompanythespokenpoem.

Inthisvideolink,thestudents,alongwithoneoftheresearchers,isperformingthecellpoemtogether.Noticethemovementsassignedtoeachcellpart.Thesemovementsarereferencedintheexamplesinthepaperandinthevideo.

Alongwithexploringthestructureandfunctionofacell inembodiedways in thedancesession,wealsofacilitated an introduction to computerprogrammingandbasiccomputationalconceptsandpractices.We began by dancing a popular hip hopline dance known as theCha-cha Slide that centers


73

aroundsequenceofsteps,jumps,stompingthefoot,and the cha-cha basic step, repeating the themesequence and variations in a counterclockwisepattern. Led by the other researcher who has anextensive background in computer science, thestudentswereintroducedtocomputationalthinkingconcepts of sequence and loop, as well as thecomputational practice of remixing in reference tothe Cha-cha Slide. In later sessions, the researcherintroduced concepts of conditionals (e.g., if aconstraint is met, then carry out a sequence ofactions) and variables (i.e., a storage location thatcan hold any value). In our program, conditionalswere demonstrated by saying “If I clap my hands,then perform your sequence.” The instructorwouldthen snap, stomp, and then clap. Variables weredemonstrated alongside loops;where studentswereaskedtoperformtheirsequence“x”amountoftimes.Theinstructor,inthiscase,wouldcalloutthevalueof x which indicated howmany times the studentswould perform and loop the sequence. Othercomputationalpracticesof iterating,debugging,andremixing were used implicitly throughout. Inmanyways,thepracticeofcomputerprogrammingisverymuch like the compositional process ofchoreographing a dance, where small pieces areintegratedintoalargerwhole(modularization),andbodypositionsareincorporatedandchangedslightlytocreatesomethingnew(remixingandreusing).According to the dance instructor, initially, thedifferences in terminology were a steep learningcurveforthestudents.However,throughdiscussion,they realized that many terms in technology anddance are similar, e.g. writing code is similar tochoreographing a dance; the creative process issimilar, as well. Once the classes discovered thesesimilarities, working simultaneously in bothprocesses became more seamless. The danceinstructor also noted after the project that she cannowmakeconnectionsbetweenthetwoprocessesinhereverydayteaching.Inalwayslookingforwaystoconnectwith thestudents inways thatarenotonlyfamiliar to them but that are also relevant in theirlives, she explained that she was excited aboutincorporatingcomputationalthinkingandembodiedliteracies in her class. She expressed, “My studentsliveinatimethatracesatthespeedoflight.Myjobis to present opportunities that allow for multiple

levels of learning. Integrating technologicalstrategies with dance strategies creates a learningenvironment with the potential for a multitude ofsolutions to problems. This way of teaching meetsthe needs of my diverse student population andprepares them for their future” (personalcommunication,October2015).MeasuresandDataCollectionWe collected both quantitative and qualitativedata throughout the sessions. The followingdescribeseachformofdatacollected.

Pre- and post-computational thinkingtest. A study-specific test was used to gaugestudents’ understanding of computational concepts:sequence, variables, conditionals, and loopsprior tothesessionsinapre-testandtomeasureanychangesafter the sessions in a post-test. Neither test had abearing on students’ grades within their class. Thetestswereusedsolelyasaresearchmeasure.Thetenquestions on both the pre- and post-computationalthinkingtestswereidenticalandpresentedblocksofcode, suchas theoneshown inFigure4,andaskedstudents todetermine thebehaviorof thecharacterbeingcontrolledbytheblocks.TheimagesandcodewerecapturedfromLookingGlass,theprogramthatthestudentsused.Forexample,inFigure4,studentswereasked,“Howmanytimeswillthecharacterclapherhands?”Open-endedquestions(e.g.,“Describealoop”and“What isavariable?”)werealso included.Thefulltestisincludedasanappendix.

Figure 4. Problem from computational thinking test given toparticipants. Students are asked to determine the behavior of thecharactergiventheinstructionspresentedbythecode.

Biographic data. The biographical surveycontained 36 questions to assess the students’personal information relevant for our study. It



74

containeddemographicquestionstoassesstheirage,grade, race, and language spoken at home. Thequestionsalsoassessedtheirpreferenceforschoolorsubjects in a multiple choice format using a scaleranging from “a lot” to “none at all.” The questionswere organized in 3 major sections—computerusage, dance, and video games. The questions inthese categories collected information about thenumberofhoursspentonthecomputerordancing,and their preferences for these activities, andopen-endedquestionsrelatedtowhytheydoordonotseethemselves as a dancer and how they definecomputerprogramming.

Video and photographic data. Each sessionwith the students was video recorded and photodocumented fromat leastoneangle.Ondayswhenstudents formally performed their choreographywith the group, there were two video camerascapturing the performance, as well as the groupreactions and feedback following the performance.Additionally, small video clips of specific student-student and student-researcher interactions werecapturedatvarioustimes.

Figure5.Photodocumentationexample.Imageofstudentsprogrammingandonestudentrehearsinghischoreographyashispartnercontrolsthecomputer.

Student choreography notes. As thestudents choreographed and rehearsed their cell-inspireddances in thephysical realmwithpartners,theymade theirownchoreographicnotesonpaper.These notes served two note-taking purposes whilethe students were rehearsing: 1) to help themremembertheirsequencesandmovementsfromoneweektothenextand2)toassistthemintransferringtheirchoreographyontotheirvirtualcharactersandmodifying it. We collected 22 choreography notes,one from each pair (12 fromMonday’s class and 10

fromFriday’sclass).Eachpairorganized theirnotesdifferently,somewithbulletedlistswithwrittentext,others with numbered drawings of stick figuresperforming individual moves (see later Figures 8 &9).Groupdiscussions.Attheendofmanyof thesessions,we came together as a group to reflect onwhat we had done or to assess studentunderstanding, particularly of computationalthinking.Uponthecompletionoftheproject,wehadagroupdiscussionabouttheentireprocessthatwasquoted in theopening vignette of this paper.Thesediscussions, led by a member of the research teamwerevideotaped,andstudent responseswerecodedin the qualitative analysis. Semi-structureddiscussion questions included asking students whatthey enjoyed, what challenged them, what theywanted to spendmore timeon, aswell as thoughtson the relationship between dance and computerprogramming.Ratherthanaformal,groupinterview,a discussion occurred with students raising theirhands and sharing their thoughts based on ourpromptsasintheopeningvignette.DataAnalysisAs described in more detail below, statisticalsoftware was used to analyze the quantitative data.The qualitative data was analyzed using severalrounds of strategic qualitative coding. Bothquantitative and qualitative strategies remainedessential to our data analysis due our researchquestions asking about the ways in which studentsuse embodied ways of thinking and how theysupport student knowledge of computationalthinking concepts, practices, and perspectives. Boththese questions require examination of qualitativedata, and the latter necessitates the measure ofcomputationalthinking,aswell.Quantitative survey analysis. Scores wereobtained from the pre-test and post-test forcomputational thinking.Theyweremarkedoutofatotalof 10,where 1point is forarightanswerand0points for awrong answer. The biographical surveyalsowasanalyzedquantitativelywithrespecttotheirschool subject preference, computer usage, andorientation towards dance. The data then was


75

analyzedusingIBM©SPSSStatisticssoftwaretorunvarious forms of analysis, like the paired sample t-test, the independent sample t-test, Pearson’scorrelation, and Spearman’s correlation. Therespectivegraphs(see laterFigures6&7)werealsogenerated using the software mentioned. Onlysignificant results from these tests are presented inthisarticle.Qualitative discourse analysis. Qualitativeanalysis of the video and photographic data andaccompanying observation notes, parts of thebiographic survey, and student choreographic notesconsisted of three rounds of strategic coding forthemes.Duringthefirstroundofcoding,qualitativedatawasorganizedviadescriptive—wordsorphrasesabout topics—and in vivo—quoted words orphrases—coding (Saldaña, 2013). For example,researchers introduced students to the concept of aconditional in programming by prompting them to“fill in the blank”: “If I clean my room, ____.”Students responded, “I get a treat,” or “I make mymom happy.” Moments like this were codeddescriptively as “introduction to programmingconcepts.” When students were explaining thecharacteristic of a cell membrane as “semi-permeable,”allowingnutrientsinandkeepingtoxinsout,thestudents’invivoquoteswerecoded,suchas“likeawaterfilter,”“likethesecurityattheairport,”or“likealinebacker.”A second round of coding was conducted todetermine and develop thematic categories andpatternsthatemergedfromtheinitialcodes.Usingacombination of pattern coding—identifyingemergentthemes(Miles&Huberman,1994;Saldaña,2013) and focused coding—searching for the mostfrequent or significant themes (Charmaz, 2006;Saldaña, 2013)—the descriptive and in vivo codeswere organized into four large and at timesoverlapping thematic codes that also directlycorresponded to the Discourses involved: (a)computationalthinking—asetofconcepts,practices,and perspectives that draw upon the world ofcomputing and remain applicable across multipledisciplines; (b) dance & embodiment—related todance elements, vocabulary, and practices; (c) cellbiology—related to defining and representing cellstructure and function; (d) multimodal

representations—related to when studentstransferred knowledge from one mode to another,such as dance to programming or programming toverbaldiscourse.Basedonthepatternsthatemergedfromthese fourthematic codes, a third round of theoretical codingfocused on the nuances within these categories,particularly the fourth category of multimodalrepresentations. Based on a grounded theoreticalanalysis, theoretical coding condenses themes intothe central phenomenon, core experience, orcommon explanations of the participants that seemtoexplain,“whatthisresearchisallabout”(Strauss&Corbin,1998,p.146ascitedinSaldaña,2013,p.224).Analyzing these instances in the qualitative data,relationships between the multimodalrepresentations and student meaning makingemerged, highlighting the complexity of thestudents’ literacy practices and illuminating thequantitative findings. When the studentsrepresented their knowledge of cells, their dancing,andprogramming, theyexpressed their ideas acrossmultiple modes of representation and discourse,demonstratingwhattheyknewandhowthatrelatedto their prior knowledge, experiences, andinteractionswithpeers.

Discussion

After conducting both quantitative analysis of thesurvey and questionnaire data and qualitativeanalysis of the students’ notes, video, photographic,and interview data, we found that the students: 1)improved their computational knowledge, and 2)engaged in complex and meaningful, embodiedpractices while computer programming. We alsofound that the process of choreographing a danceand programming a complimentary virtualcharacter’s dance based on curricular contentafforded the students opportunities to engage in a“constellation of [multimodal] literacy practices”(Steinkuehler,2007,n.p.).Analysis of Pre- and Post-computationalThinkingTestOnlysignificantresultsarepresentedinthefindings.There were significant learning gains when the



76

difference in scores of the pretest (M = 4.66, SD =2.12)andposttest(M=5.82,SD=1.67)wereanalyzedusingpairedsamplesT-test,t(43)=3.447,p=0.001(Figure 6). The pre-test and post-test scores werealsofoundtobesignificantlycorrelated,r=0.329,p=0.029.

Figure 6. Pretest and posttest comparison. This bar graph depicts themeansandstandarddeviationsof theposttestandpretestscoresof thecomputationalconcepttest.QuantitativeAnalysisoftheBiographicalSurveyAnother significant finding was that those studentswhoidentifiedthemselvesashavingreceivedformaldance training scored higher on the post-test (M =5.82, SD = 1.67), t (42) = 2.54, p = 0.015 (Figure 7).While we cannot determine causation, wehypothesizethatthisfindingmightberelatedtotheoverall project’s effectiveness with students moreinclinedorversedindanceasaformof inquiryandexpression.Therefore,theymayhavebenefitedfromengaging in computational thinking throughembodied practices. While we conducted furtherstatisticalanalysisofthecomputationalthinkingtestand biographical data, no conclusions could bedrawnduetothesmallsamplesize.Also,therewereminimal data gaps for those students who wereabsentduringtheadministrationofthepre-orpost-computationaltestsorsurvey.

Figure7.Comparisonbetweengroupswithandwithoutformaltraining.Means and standard deviations of the scores attained by Y (groupreceivedformaltraining)andN(groupdidnotreceiveformaltraining). QualitativeFindingsBasedonthequantitativedataanalysis,wenotethatthestudents’computationalthinkingandknowledgesignificantly increased. The processes that enabledthischangewerecapturedqualitatively,andthroughour analysis with a focus on emergent themes, wehave two significant findings in the students’experiences. First, in response to our researchquestion, we noted that the students engaged in avariety of embodied ways (through choreography,physical demonstrations, gestures, anddrawings) inordertoprogramandperformwiththeircharacters.Secondly, these embodied engagementswere variedanddiverse,yetstillcenteringontheirchoreographyandprogramming,servingtopaintacomplexpictureof the students’ overall experiences and meaningmakingduringthisproject.Moreover, the students engaged innumerous formsof multimodal literacy practices throughout. Webelieve the accumulated and related literacypracticesthroughthesevariedd/Discoursesformeda“constellation” of multimodal literacy practices(Steinkuehler,2007,n.p.), improvingtheir increasedperformanceonthecomputationaltest. Inaddition,engaginginthisconstellationofmultimodalliteracypractices supported theapplicationandsynthesisoftheir knowledge through the choreographic andprogrammingexperiences,connectingthediscursive,disciplinary knowledge and relating computerprogramming,dance,andschoolcurriculum.


77

Aconstellationisanimaginedshapethatstarsformwhen viewed as a group. When looking at literacypracticesasaconstellation,eachpracticeislinkedtoa star.When viewed together, as in a constellation,thesepracticesilluminateamorecomplexpictureofhow these individual practices form studentknowledgeandmeaningmaking.MorediscussiononSteinkuehler’s (2007; 2010) use of this term willfollowthisdiscussion.The following are coded scenarios elucidating therangeofmultimodal literacypractices that studentsengagedinwheretheyalsoutilizedvariousformsofd/Discourse, calling upon specific various funds ofknowledge (Gee, 2008; 2011; 2014; Gonzalez et al.,2005; Moje, et al., 2004). First varied embodiedliteracypracticesareexemplified,demonstratingthecomplexity of these practices and how they areinherently multimodal with verbal, written, andpictorial forms embedded within them. They areorganized into four coded categories: directed,autonomous, verbalizing, and documenting.Following embodied literacy practices are examplesof computational thinking (concepts, practices,perspectives) as literacy practices, exhibiting themultimodal examples of students choreographing,programming, verbalizing, and documenting withthe computer. Within this discussion, there is asubsetofexamplesshowcasinghowstudentsutilizedtheliteracypracticeofproblemsolving.

Embodied literacy practices. Consistentlythroughouttheproject,thestudentsembodiedtheirinquiry and knowledge in numerous ways. Thestudents engaged in directed creative movementactivitieswhere the researchers invited thestudentsas a group to embody a cell, toperformand loop asequence of steps, or to remember a sequence bydancing it. In embodying the content, they wereexpressing their knowledge using movements andmovementphrasessimilartohowonemightexpressknowledge with written text. Also, they were giventhe opportunity to engage in more autonomouscreativeandoriginalembodiedinterpretationsofthecurricular content through their dances and theproblem solving strategies of choreographing whileprogramming.

Directed embodied literacy practices. Whenreading and comprehending any form of text, onehasto interpretmeaning.To introducethestudentsto computational concepts of sequence, loops, andconditionals, one of the researchers invitedvolunteers to perform a simple movement, such asmoving their arms up and down then taking smallsteps in a pattern on the floor. She then asked thestudents to loop this sequence three times for theclass.Attimes,avolunteerwouldleaveastepoutorperform something in a similar pattern but not thesame,exactpattern.Aftercompletingtheirloop,theresearcher would question the students, “Is this aloop?”A discussionwould then commence since tobe an actual loop, the repeated sequence has to beexact. Reading each other’smovements allowed thestudentstothinkandrespondcritically.Hereverbalquestioning,groupdiscussion,andmovementmodessupported each other. Picture eachmode as a star,connect them to reveal part of the constellation—arepresentation of the students’ knowledge andliteracypractices.

Autonomous embodied literacy practices. Tobe literate denotes skills that deal will autonomy,being able to communicate and interpret meaningindependently. When the students were asked tocreate theircelldancesequences, thestudentsweregiven inspiration from our explorations embodyingthe cell and also from the cell poem that had bothvery literal and abstract correspondingmovements.They then had to interpret these inspirations andcreate their own movements and sequences. Forexample, when performing the stanzas about thenucleus, one of themovements wasmarching withfistedhands.Inonepair’swrittennotes,theywrote,“controlher”next to two stick figuredancers. Sincetheywereunabletoprogramthevirtualcharacterstoexecute these moves due to the program’sconstraints,theymodifiedthemovementtohavethecharacters marching, referring to one of themovesfrom themovementpoemandas a symbolic actionof power. While many of the students also addedmarchingtotheirphysicalandvirtualchoreography,othersexpandedupontheideaofthenucleusbeingthe control center. To depict the nucleus, the cell’scentralorganelle,onedyadenactedasenseofpowerin their dancebymiming a puppeteer controlling a



78

puppet (Figure 8). In another dance, the studentsshooktheirfingersasiftellingsomeonewhattodo.During another instance when one studentvolunteered to embody the nucleus in an activity,another student is captured on video saluting thenucleusvolunteer,alludingtotheroleofthenucleusasacommanderofthecell.

Figure8.Imageofstudentchoreography.Dyadontherightoftheimagerehearsing their choreography for the nucleus. Student on right is“controlling”theotherstudentwithherhandaboveherpartner’shead.Notethechoreographicnotesonthefloor

.Additionally, one of the poem’s stanzas noted thatthe vacuoles “are like the closet, cubby, and wastebin.” Likewise, one pair of students described theirvacuolemovement in their dance as “[he] grabsmeand pushes me down” because the vacuole “storesthings.” In that same dance, based on the cellmembrane and its semi-permeable qualities as “thefence to keep what I need in and the boundary tokeepwhat Idon’tneedout,” the studentsdescribedtheir cell membrane movements as “[he] grabs meandpullsme in thenpushesmeout.”This instancedemonstrateshowthestudentstookwhattheyknewabout the cell structures and related them toconcepts that they were familiar with, abstractingthemovementsinwaysthatmadesensetothem.Inthese autonomous embodied literacy practices, thestudents transmediated knowledge across speech,writing/drawing,andmovement.Partofthecreativeprocess of choreography allows for this artisticlicense, and the students made these choicesindependently, writing and speaking with theirbodiesandonpaper inautonomousways thatweresyntonic,relatabletothem,basedontheirownfundsof knowledge (Leonard et al., 2015; Gonzalez et al.,2005;Mojeetal.,2004;Papert,1993).

Verbalizing embodied literacy practices. Part ofthe students’ sharing of their dances involvedperforming their dances alongside their virtualcharacters whose performance was projected, usinganinteractivewhiteboard.Theyperformedthedanceonce in silence and a second time, talking throughtheir choreography tonote thecell inspirationsandtheir computer programming (Figure 9; Videobelow). At times, it was quite obvious what cellstructure the students were representing physicallyand virtually, and at others, when explained, therewas often an “ooh” or “ahh” from the larger groupwhen the students explained. For example, twostudents explained in their second performance,talking through their choreography that thekickingmotionmeantto“kickthingsout”ofthecellthatthesemi-permeable cell membrane would if they werebad for the cell. The collective audible audienceresponse revealed a collective understanding andreading of that movement in relationship to whattheyknewaboutthecell.

Figure9. Studentsperformingwithvirtual characters.The studentsaredancinginfrontofaprojectionoftheirvirtualcharactersdancing.In this video, two studentsperform their cell dancein front of a screen projecting some of theirprogrammed choreography. If you look closely, youcan see the character on the left moving on thescreen. After performing the dance once, thestudents perform it again and talk through theirchoreography.


79

After each performance, the audience of students,teacher, and researchers were invited to providefeedback using the prompt of TAG: Tell somethingthatyounoticed;Askaquestionaboutwhatyousaw;and Give some positive feedback. Therefore, thesedescriptive and peer feedback verbalizations of thework added another layer of text to the alreadycomplex text of the physical and virtual dance andtheprogrammingandchoreographicworkthatwentinto it. Instances like these strengthen the overallconstellationofliteracypracticessinceeachpracticeadds to the largerpicture.Duringoneperformance,the students dancing dramatically dropped to theground as their virtual characters disappeared onscreen for a couple of seconds. Once theyreappeared, thestudentsstoodupandcontinuedtodance. During the TAG session, one studentremarked that thedisappearingpartwas “cool” andwishedhehadfiguredthatoutonthecomputer.Theperformersexplained, “Wedisappearedbecauseyoucannotseethecellsbecausetheyaresosmall.”Fromthegroup,audibleresponseswereheardsincepartofthepoemnotedthatthecell “is thesmallestunitoflife.” When the cells were introduced, it wasdiscussed that one needs amicroscope to see cells,butafterthat,onlythelinefromthepoemremindedthe students of this. Interestingly, this resonatedwith the students, and they communicated byabstractingtheconceptphysicallyintheirmovementof dropping low to the floor “to hide” and byprogramming the characters to disappear briefly—afeature on the program that was not presentedformally to the group but one that they found ontheirownfromtheirownexploration. Additionally, the students verbally expressed theiraesthetic choreographic choices, showcasing theirdance literacy and the notion that being literateallows for aesthetic expression and representations.DuringaTAGsession,onestudentasked,“Whydidyou chose tomake [your dance] graceful instead ofsharp?” alluding to the fact that the constraints ofLooking Glass did not allow for the characters’motions to be fluid; as a result, they were oftenclunky, rigid, and sharp, and therefore, manystudents’dancesmirroredthisquality,asmanytriedto perform their dance to match their characters’.The students, alongwith feedback from theirdanceteacher, discussed how people have different “style

preferences.” Also, these performers, withextracurricular dance funds of knowledge, wantedthedance to lookpolishedandgraceful.Partof thereason it was graceful was that they executed themovementsinunison.Theyexplainedthatsincetheywerenotusingmusic,theychoreographedthedancetobeveryspecificsothattheycould“staytogether.”Here the verbal andphysical explanations relied oneach other, exhibiting how different modes ofcommunication are embedded within embodiedliteracypractices.

Documentingembodiedliteracypractices.Thestudents’ choreography notes provided insight intohow they transducted their corporeal knowledgeusing thepenandpapermedia inbothwrittenandpictorial forms. It is also interesting to note thatwhenthestudentsexplainedtheirdancesduringtheperformance,attimestheymisspokeorseemedtobeconfused about what a particular structure wascalled. They seemed to know their function butmixed up the cytoplasm and the cell membrane.However, fromexaminingtheirchoreographynotes,it is clear what movements, via drawings ordescriptions, matched which structure, and theywereallcorrectonpaper.In addition, the students documented theirchoreography in a variety of forms: using writtentext; stick-figure drawings; symbols depicting adirection or quality ofmovement, such as an arrowor squiggle; andwith numbers, bullets, or boxes todepict order of sequence. On several of thesechoreography documentations, the studentsexpressedknowledgeofcomputationalconcepts.Forexample, in Figure 10, the students drew separateboxes for each movement and each dancer’smovements.Whether or not thiswas influenced bytheboxformatusedinLookingGlasstoseparateanindividual character’s distinct motion in an actionordering box to denote a specific order of thesequence is unclear, but a parallel between thepictorialrepresentationandcomputerrepresentationwas noted. Also, this pair of students noted howmany loops to perform using the computerprogramminglanguage.



80

Figure10.Exampleofstudentchoreographynotes.Inthischoreographynote, the students place eachmovement and dance in a separate box.Notetheinstructionsforloops.

In another choreography note, the students notedtheir choreography in a list of keymovements andthen wrote out the dance in a sentence-like formwithannotationsaboutsequence,whoperformsandinwhatorder,andwhen inunison(Figure 11).Theynoted the unison as “dotogether,” the same languageused in thecomputerprogram.They annotated their uniquesentence form with a bracketaround the movementsreferenced. This structure alsois reminiscent of the actionorderingboxesinLookingGlass(Figure 2). Since the writtenand drawn texts representedphysical movements andprogramming structures thatstudents manipulated in theprograms, these documentinginstances also make anotherform of embodied literacypractices, illustrating howembodied literacy occurs inmultimodalforms.

Figure 11.Exampleof studentchoreographynotes. In thischoreographynote,thestudentsmadeakeyoftheirmovementsandthenwrotethemin a sequence below that is reminiscent of a sentence. It also includespartsto“dotogether”andwhoperformsfirstandthenwhofollows:“___then___.”Pleasenotethatthestudents’nameshavebeencovered.

Computational thinking as embodied literacypractice. Throughout the project, the studentsweredeveloping their computer literacy andcomputational thinking skills. For the project, webrought in MacBook Pro laptops, one per dyad.WhilesomestudentshaveMaccomputersathome,the students used PCs in school; therefore,

navigating on a differentoperating system with itsuniqueformat,keysequences,and a touchpadmouse was askillmanyneededtodevelop.In many ways, the studentshave to learn new ways ofmoving their hands on thecomputer to direct theactivities on the screen. Eventheir dance teacherwasmorefamiliarwithaPC.Sincetherewereonlythreeresearcherstoassistwithtechnicalquestionsand between 20 and 22students, often the studentshad to play on their own toproblem solve or, at times,assist each other. Thus, theybecame collectively proficienton using the Mac technologyquickly.

Likeaconstellation,eachliteracypracticethatthestudentsengagedinfromadaptingandinterpreting

conceptsintomovementsandprogrammedcodinglanguagetoverbal,written,andpictorial

explanationswaspartofalargerpicture.Piecedtogether,

thesepracticesformedanindividualizedpictureofthestudents’knowledgeand

meaningmaking.


81

One of our main research questions seeks to learnabout thestudents’experiencesanddevelopmentofcomputational thinking skills with computationalconcepts, practices, and perspectives. Concepts arelike the computing tools (sequences, loops,conditionals, parallelism1). Practices are theprocessesofusingthosetools(iterating,reusing,andremixing2), and perspectives are ways of seeingcomputingas a tool for self-expression (Daily et al.,2015; Brennan & Resnick 2012a; 2012b). While itbecameclearthroughtheincreaseinscoresfromthepre-tothepost-computationalthinkingtest,aswellas in the group discussions and activities, that thestudentsweredevelopingagreaterunderstandingofcomputational concepts and their applications, italso became clear by observing their interactionswhile on the computer (using the computer,directing their partners to use the computer--pointingandusingthemousepad)anddiscussinginthegroup interviews that theywerealsodevelopingcomputational practices and perspectives throughembodiedmeans.Forexample,duringonesession,astudentaskedforsomeassistanceincreatingaloop.Tocreatealoop,onecandragnumerousboxesofthesamemovementover to the Looking Glass workspace. Anotherstudentoverheardthisandchimedintoexplainthatthere was another, possibly more efficient way tocreate a loop that he remembered seeingdemonstrated on another day. Pointing andgesturing to the computer, he explained that onecoulduseanaction-orderingboxandchoosetoenterin the number of times to loop a particular action.Here the students were learning an importantcomputational perspective—thinking like aprogrammer: that there isoftenmore thanonewaytoexecuteatask.Another student remarked that one of her favoriteparts of the project was that one could “try outdifferent things tomake it go good [sic] and figureouttherightmovesattherighttimeanddoitagainandagaintomake[thecharacter’s]armsgoupatthesametimeusinga ‘do together’box.”Whatshewasexplaining was the computational practice ofiterations. Computer programmers often must trymultipleiterationstoperfectasequence,workingonitoverandoveragain.Studentswerecommonlyseen

playing a preview of their character dancing, thenexaminingthecodedsequencetochecktomakesureit was correct, and then playing the preview againand againuntil they figuredoutwhatneeded to befixed. This process aligns well with thecomputational practices of iteration (continuouslyrefining code) and debugging (a structured processfor finding errors in code). Moreover, throughprogramming the choreography and the watchingand critiquing of the previews of the characterdancing, they were once again using embodiedliteracy practices, ones directly related to the bodyandtheirunderstandingsofhowbodiesmove.Students also noted a sense of empowerment inknowing how tomake the computer “dowhat [we]want.” Another remarked, “I just like programmingin general, controlling the computer and telling itwhat to do.” Here this control and ability tomanipulate by programming and moving blocks ofcode, again relates to the body’s role in how wecompute, controlling actions on the screen withmotionsofourhands,clicksofbuttons,andreadingdigital texts and physically responding to them onscreen. Relating to the broader context ofcomputing, another student responded, “Ifwewantto do this [computer program in the future], weknowhowtodoit.”Onestudentexplainedthatyoudon’thave tobea “techie”orgoodwith technologyto computer program. Since during this project itwascleartohimthat“weallcanprogram;weareallprogrammers!” Yet, one of his peers disagreed andresponded that he was not sure that they actuallywere“programmers”becausehis “dad isacomputerprogrammerandheknowsalotofthings.Ittakesalot of smarts [sic] at the highest level. You have toputinyourtime.”Referringtothisbroadercomputerscience context, it was interesting to note that thestudentswho had themost intensive and extensiveknowledge of programming and had spentsignificant timeusingotherprogrammingplatformsfeltthatLookingGlassandthisintroductorylevelofprogramming to “not be programming.” It seemedthat the majority of the students with minimalprogrammingexperience,whodidnotusecomputerprograms in their spare time, feltmore empoweredand optimistic about their programming abilitiesduringourgroupinterviewsession.



82

Problem solving. Even in the mosttraditionalsenseofliteracy,problemsolvingremainsessential (National Institute for Literacy, n.d.;Steinkuehler, 2007). Since the students were giventhe task to choreograph and program their owndance sequences in dyads, problem solving anddoingsocollaborativelybecameahugepartoftheirexperience during the project. Consistently, thestudentsencounteredthechallengeofprogramminga complementary dance for their characters whenthe capabilities of the virtual character did notparallel their own. As one student explained, thecharacters“couldn’tdoexactthingslikepeople,”andso different dyads solved this problem in variousways. In fact, one student remarked that since thephysicalandvirtualdancedidnothave tobeexact,that that made the process easier for her and herpartner.

In one dance, the students wrapped their armsaroundeachothertodepictthecellmembrane,butin the virtual dance, the characters made a 360-degree turn instead. Both movements had a“rounded” element to thembutwere not the same.Other students had more intricate motions in thephysicaldanceforthenucleusthatwerereminiscentto a puppeteer controlling a puppet, while anothergroup used their arms as the “hands of a clock” tosignify that the nucleus “controls the wholeoperation,”butthenthesegroupsprogrammedtheircharacters to simply march in place. Yet, themarchingmovewas one that directly correspondedto the movement poem, noting again the transfersacrossdiscourse.Another dyad chose to focus more upfront on theprogrammed dance. Once their character’smovementswere completed, they re-choreographedtheirphysicalsequencetomatchthevirtualone.Theonly move that was different was when theymotionedwith theirhands tocreatea roundshape,like a cell, from the poem, while their charactersclapped instead. Here both movements dealt withthehands.Theirphysicalaestheticperformancestyleeven matched the rigid, sharp movements of thecharacter. Rather than be concerned about thevirtual character not being “like a human,” theydancedlikethecharacter.

Other students shared their choreography andprogramming strategies. In one dyad, one studentfelt more comfortable dancing and the otherprogramming so they split up the work and thentaught each other what they had done. In order tomatch the timingof thecharacterwith thephysicaldance, others noted that they would take turnspressingplayon the laptopwhileonewoulddance,andthenwouldswitch.Anotherpairofstudentswastrying to figure out how to program two charactersto perform in unison. They asked a student fromanother group to explain howhe figured it out.Hethen instructed his peers to locate the specificcommand action, “Do Together” to groupmovements together and to populate a “DoTogether”boxofcodewiththesamemovementsforeachcharacter.ConstellationsofMultimodalLiteracyPracticeWhenconductingresearchonMMOGs,Steinkuehler(2008)foundthattheyallowedfora“constellationofliteracypractices,” (p. 302), rather thandegradedorreplaced traditional forms of literacy. Contrary topublic criticism of online gaming, her researchfindingsbroadendefinitionsofliteracy,criticallyandempirically defendingmultimodal forms of literacy.Calling upon the New London Group’s (1996)contextual and in-practice notion that “literacies(plural) crucially entail sensemakingwithin a rich,multimodal semiotic system” (Steinkuehler,2007,p.300), her research demonstrates how MMOGsengage players in varied but related literacypractices. From in-game literacy practices ofcommunicating with other players to fan sites andblogs, “MMOGs entail not only (inter)action in thegame’s virtual environment but also the productionand consumption of online fandom content in theform of discussion boards, website contributions,creative endeavors such as writing stories, and thelike. At themicro level of a given moment in anindividual’s gameplay, participation meansmovement among multiple” spaces of reading andwriting. Thus, the literacy practices that compriseMMOGs are “not isolated and autonomous but,rather, interrelated in complex and mutuallydefining ways” (Steinkuehler, 2007, p. 303).


83

Moreover, Steinkuehler (2010) explains that unlikeother media forms, “video games are about a backandforthbetweenreadingthegame'smeaningsandwriting back into them” (p. 61). Therefore, playerscan inscribe their intentions within the game’snarrativespace,exemplifyingdigitalliterarypractice.Our project merging movement and computerprogramming, while not a MMOG, allowed formeaning making and literacy practices within acomplex multimodal semiotic system. Like in theMMOGs, thestudentswereengaging inaparticularactivity that requiredmultiple formsof literacy thatwere interconnected and inherentlymultimodal.Toprogram, one had to interpret the dance andcommunicate its meaning with the biology,inscribing one’s own understanding and priorknowledge. Working in dyads and groups, givingeachother feedback andassistance, the experienceswere innately multimodal and always aboutrepresentationandthetransmediationofknowledge.Steinkuehler (2010) notes, “All interaction ismultimodal.Ourcommunication ismorethanwhatis said and heard but bywhatwe perceive throughexpressions,gazes,gesturesandmovements”(p61).Like a constellation, each literacy practice that thestudents engaged in fromadaptingand interpretingconcepts into movements and programmed codinglanguage to verbal, written, and pictorialexplanations was part of a larger picture. Piecedtogether, these practices formed an individualizedpicture of the students’ knowledge and meaningmaking. Like a constellation that ismade from theconnections of individual stars to create an image,these practices connect to demonstrate knowledgebydepictingstudentknowledge.Justasstarscanbeapartofmultipleconstellations,herethesepracticescanmakeconnectionsindifferentwaysfordifferentstudents, forming individualized constellations ofpractice.Inthebeginningofthepaper,studentswerequotedas discussing the process of transferring knowledgeinone form,dance, to another,programming.Theynotedtheeaseofthisprocesssinceitwassomethingthat they could relate to. Even though the studentsdid not note explicitly all the other transmediationprocessesthattheywentthroughduringthisproject

atthistime,theytoowerepowerfulandeffectiveduetothatknowledgebeingofasyntonicrelationshiptothe students (Papert, 1993). Even more, studentsenhanced their experiences and connections acrosscurriculum and knowledge calling upon their ownfunds of knowledge from their extracurricularexperiences and home life (Gonzalez et al., 2004).Relatingknowledgetosomethingthatmadesensetothem allowed them to engage across discursivecontexts.Discourseisneverjustaboutlanguage.Geeexplains,“Discourses are ways of speaking/listening,writing/reading, acting, interacting, valuing,thinking, and using objects, tools, technologies,placesandtimes,torecogniseandgetrecognisedashaving specific (often contested and negotiated)sociallysituatedidentities”(St.Clair&Phipps,2008,p. 93).While computer science, dance, and biologymightnotberealmsthatonethinksofasrelated,thestudents were able to make connections, relateknowledge, and reshape them through varied yetconnected multimodal literacy practices. Thus, thed/Discourseswereutilizedintransdisciplinaryways.Moreover, in translating biology to dance tocomputerprogramming,thestudentswereengagingand making connections across these socially andprofessionally situated networks. And theaccumulationoftheirexperiencesseemedtomakeaconstellation of multimodal literacy practices foreachstudent.Literacy is continually shapedby socialandculturalcontexts. And these constellations of multimodalliteracy practices are indeed culturally and sociallysituated in this particular school and researchcontext but also in our broader global and digitalcontext. Computer science, in a rapidly andcontinually growing technological world, stands asfoundational for educational advances and impact.This project hopes to open up pathways, allowingmore students to engage in d/Discourses ofprofessionalfields,likecomputerscienceanddance,merging this knowledge with one’s own syntonicknowledge (Papert, 1993).Gringrasso (Curran et al.,2011)writes, “Becoming literate resembles a journeyoneengagesinasalifelongprocessmorethanastateone achieves that ‘gradually builds reading fluencyand thinking abilities’ ” (p. 28; Gordon & Gordon,



84

2003, xv). Embodying and programming aconstellationofmultimodalliteracypracticesvisuallyandphysicallymapspartofthatjourneyofbecomingliterateforthesestudents.

Conclusion

Over a period of eleven weeks, VEnvI (VirtualEnvironment Interactions) researchers facilitatedworkshops in creative movement, programing, andscience.Thegoalwas tohave studentschoreographand perform original dances along with projectionsof their virtual characters, which had beenprogrammed by the students to performcomplementarychoreographyrepresentingfunctionsof cells. Seeking to make connections between theartistic process of choreographing a dance and thecompositional process of programming a character,weinvestigatedthewaysinwhichthestudentsmademeaning through their experiences in embodiedways.Working indyads tochoreographandprogram, thestudents merged curricular science content withembodied, social, and computational knowledge.Ultimately, thiscasestudy interventionhas inspireddesign revisions toourongoingdevelopmentofourvirtual environmentplatform,VEnvI. Following thiscase study, we began using our platform duringresearchscenariosandcontinuetodevelopitsdesignandfunctionality.Ourhopeisthatitwillbeavailablein the near future for download by students,teachers,andfamilies.Mostsignificantfromthiscasestudyinteraction,wefound that students improved in their overallcomputational thinking knowledge and skills.Employing multimodal literacy practices, thestudentsalsoengagedinandnegotiatedmultimodaland multimedia texts and discourse: programming,computing,dance, conversing,writing, anddrawing(Kalantzis,Cope,&Cloonan,2010;Kress,2003;NewLondonGroup,1996).Thus,throughtheseembodied

literacy experiences that were inherentlymultimodal, thestudentswere interweaving literacypractices, utilizing and representing acrossmultiplemodes of discourse to communicate and representknowledge while also negotiating multipleDiscoursesrelatedtocomputerprogramming,dance,andschool(Gee,2008).Examininghowthestudentsmade connections across d/Discourse in thismultimodal process—navigating computerprogramming, dance, and traditional forms ofliteracy and language in school—becomesreminiscent of a constellation, therefore creating aconstellation of multimodal literacy practices(Steinkuehler,2007).Informedbyscholarshipandtheoriesofembodimentand cognition, constructivist learning, and literacyperspectives (Dils, 2007; Hanna, 2014; New LondonGroup, 1996; Papert, 1993), this researchdemonstrates the complex,multimodalprocessesofreconstructing and recreating curricular knowledgein schools through embodied means, related tomultipleformsofmedia:movement,speech,writing,drawing, and computers.We acknowledge that thepositiveeffectsonstudentknowledgeandmeaning-making through our research interventions havebeen possible largely in part to the multimodal,embodiedliteracypracticesthatstudentsengagedinduring their virtual environment interactions,blendingandnavigatingcomputerprogramminganddance within a school context. According to thedance instructor, integrating technology and dancewas a positive, new experience for her and thestudents and opened the door to new possibilities.Thestudentshavebeenaskingformoreexperienceslikethisone,andsheis inspiredtomakeithappen.Ultimately, inconductingandsharing this research,we seek to expand the professional and academicpossibilities for K-12 students through opening uppathways that synthesize knowledge across andthrough digital media, computer science, and artsdisciplines.

References

Albers,P.,Holbrook,T.andHarste,J.C.(2010).Talkingtrade:Literacyresearchersaspracticingartists.Journal

ofAdolescent&AdultLiteracy,54(3),164-171.


85

Alice(2x)[Software].(2008-2013).Pittsburgh,PA:CarnegieMellonUniversity.Retrievedfrom http://www.alice.org/Bers,M.,&Horn,M.(2010).Tangibleprogramminginearlychildhood:Revisitingdevelopmentalassumptions throughnewtechnologies.InI.Berson&M.Berson(Eds.),High-techtots:Childhoodinadigitalworld (pp.49–70).Charlotte,NC:InformationAgePublishing.Block,B.&Kissell,J.L.(2011).Thedance:Essenceofembodiment.TheoreticalMedicine,22(1),5–15. Brennan,K.,&Resnick,M.(2012a).Usingartifact-basedinterviewstostudythedevelopmentofcomputational

thinkingininteractivemediadesign.PaperpresentedatannualAmericanEducationalResearchAssociationMeeting,Vancouver,BC,Canada.

Brennan,K.,&Resnick,M.(2012b).Newframeworksforstudyingandassessingthedevelopmentof

computationalthinking.In2012annualmeetingoftheAmericanEducationalResearchAssociation.Vancouver,Canada.

Bresler,L.(Ed.).(2004).Knowingbodies,movingminds:Towardsembodiedteachingandlearning.Dordrecht,

TheNetherlands:KluwerAcademicPublishers.Brown,A.L.(1992).Designexperiments:Theoreticalandmethodologicalchallengesincreatingcomplex

interventionsinclassroomsettings.JournaloftheLearningSciences,2(2),141–178.Charmaz,K.(2006).Constructinggroundedtheory:Apracticalguidethroughqualitativeanalysis.Thousand

Oaks,CA:Sage.Clements,D.H.,Battista,M.T.,&Sarama,J.(2001).Logoandgeometry.JournalforResearchinMathematics

EducationMonographSeries,10.Cooper,S.,Dann,W.,&Pausch,R.(2000).Alice:A3-Dtoolforintroductoryprogrammingconcepts.In

ProceedingsofthefifthannualCCSCnortheasternconferenceonthejournalofcomputinginsmallcolleges.USA:ConsortiumforComputingSciencesinColleges.Retrievedfromhttp://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=364132.364161

Cope,B.,&Kalantzis,M.(Eds.).(2000).Multiliteracies:Literacylearningandthedesignof socialfutures.

London:Routledge.Curran,T.,Gingrasso,S.,Megill,B.,&Heiland,T.(2011).Forgingmutualpaths:Definingdanceliteracyinthe

21stCentury.Conferenceproceedings,NationalDanceEducationOrganization.Minneapolis,MN.Retrievedfromhttp://www.academia.edu/1859913/Forging_Mutual_Paths_Defining_Dance_Literacy_in_the_21st_Century--Dance-based_Dance_Literacies

Daily,S.B.,Leonard,A.E.,Jörg,S.,Babu,S.V.,Gundersen,K.,&Parmar,D.(2015).Embodyingcomputational

thinking:Initialdesignofanemergingtechnologicallearningtool.Technology,KnowledgeandLearning,20(1),79-84.



86

Design-BasedResearchCollective.(2003).Design-basedresearch:Anemergingparadigmforeducationalinquiry.EducationalResearcher,32(1),5–8.

Dils,A.(2007).Whydanceliteracy?JournaloftheCanadianAssociationforCurriculumStudies,5(2),95-113.diSessa,A.(2001).Changingminds:Computers,learning,andliteracy.Cambridge,MA:TheMITPress.Drodge,E.N.,&Reid,D.A.(2000).Embodiedcognitionandthemathematicalemotionalorientation.

MathematicalThinkingandLearning,2(4),249-267.Fadjo,C.L.,Jr.,G.H.,Harris,R.,&Black,J.B.(2009).Surrogateembodiment,mathematicsinstructionand

videogameprogramming.WorldConferenceonEducationalMultimedia,HypermediaandTelecommunications(pp.4041-4046).Chesapeake,VA:AACE.

Foster,S.L.(1995).Choreographinghistories:Manifestofordeadandmovingbodies.Bloomington,IN:Indiana

UniversityPress.Frambaugh-Kritzer,C.,Buelow,S.,&Steele,J.S.(2015).Whatarethedisciplinaryliteraciesindanceanddrama

intheelementarygrades?JournalofLanguageandLiteracyEducation11(1),65-87.Gee,J.P.(2008).Sociallinguisticsandliteracies–Ideologyindiscourses(3rded.).NewYork:Routledge.Gee,J.P.(2011).Howtododiscourseanalysis:Atoolkit.NewYork:Routledge.Gee,J.P.(2014).Anintroductiontodiscourseanalysis:Theoryandmethod.NewYork:Routledge—Taylorand

FrancisGroup.Gonzalez,N.,Moll,L.C.,&Amanti,C.(2005).Fundsofknowledge–Theorizingpracticesinhouseholds,

communitiesandclassrooms.NewYork:Routledge—TaylorandFrancisGroup.Gordon,E.E.,&E.H.Gordon.(2003).LiteracyinAmerica:Historicjourneyandcontemporarysolutions.

Westport,CT:PraegerPublishers.Gross,P.A.,Herstand,M.S.,Hodges,J.W.,&Kelleher,C.L.(2010).Acodereuseinterfacefornon-programmer

middleschoolstudents.InProceedingsofthe15thinternationalconferenceonintelligentuserinterfaces.ACM.

Hanna,J.L.(2008).Anonverballanguageforimaginingandlearning:DanceeducationinK—12curriculum.

EducationalResearcher,37(8),491-506.Hanna,J.L.(2014).Dancingtolearn:Thebrain’scognition,emotion,andmovement.Lanham,MD:Rowman&

LittlefieldPublishingGroup,Inc.Hoyt,L.(1992).Manywaysofknowing:Usingdrama,oralinteractions,andthevisualartstoenhancereading

comprehension.TheReadingTeacher,45(8),580-584.JewittC.,Kress,G.,Ogborn,J.,&Tsatsarelis,C.(2000).Teachingandlearning:Beyondlanguage.Teaching

Education,11(3),327-341.


87

Johnson-Glenberg,M.C.,&Hekler,E.B.(2013).“Alienhealthgame”:Anembodiedexergametoinstructin

nutritionandMyPlate.GamesforHealthJournal:Research,DevelopmentandClinicalApplication,2(6),122-131.

Jones,S.(2013).Literaciesinthebody.JournalofAdolescent&AdultLiteracy,56(7),525-529.Kalantzis,M.,Cope,B.,&Cloonan,A.(2010).Amultiliteraciesperspectiveonthenewliteracies.NewYork:

GuilfordPress.Kress,G.(2003).LiteracyinthenewmediaAge.NewYork:Routledge.Lancy,D.F.(1993).Qualitativeresearchineducation:Anintroductiontothemajortraditions.WhitePlains.NY:

LongmanPublishingGroup.Leavy,P.(2015).Methodmeetsart:Arts-basedresearchpractice.NewYork&London:TheGuilfordPress.

Leonard,A.E.,&Daily,S.B.(2013).Dancinginvirtualenvironments(DIVE):Computationalandembodiedartsresearchinmiddleschooleducation.Voke,1(1),1-26.

Leonard,A.E.,Hall,A.H.,&Herro,D.(2015).Dancingliteracy:Expandingchildren’s andteachers’literacyrepertoiresthroughembodiedknowing.JournalofEarlyChildhoodLiteracy,0(0)

1–23.DOI:10.1177/1468798415588985

Liao,Y.K.,&Bright,G.(1991).Effectsofcomputer-assistedinstructionandcomputerprogrammingoncognitiveoutcomes:Ameta-analysis.JournalofEducationalComputingResearch,7(3),251–268.

LookingGlass[Software].(2014).St.Louis,MO:WashingtonUniversity.Retrievedfrom

http://lookingglass.wustl.edu/Lu,C.M,Kang,S.,Huang,S.C.,&Black,J.B.(2011).Buildingstudentunderstandingand interestinscience

throughembodiedexperienceswithLEGOrobotics.InProceedingsofWorldConferenceonEducationalMultimedia,HypermediaandTelecommunications.Chesapeake,VA:AACE.

Lu,M.T.P.,Hallman,G.L.&Black,J.B.(2013)Chinesecharacterlearning:Usingembodiedanimationin

initialstages.JournalofTechnologyandChineseLanguageTeaching,4,1-24.Mavers,D.(2015).Remakingmeaningacrossmodesinliteracystudies.InJ.Roswell&K.Pahl(Eds.).The

RoutlegeHandbookofLiteracyStudies(pp.282-294).London&NewYork:Routledge—TaylorandFrancisGroup.

Miles,M.B.,&Huberman,A.M.(1994).Qualitativedataanalysis.ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.Mioduser,D.,Levy,S.,&Talis,V.(2009).Episodestoscriptstorules:Concrete-abstractionsinkindergarten

children’sexplanationsofarobot’sbehaviors.InternationalJournalofTechnologyandDesignEducation,19(1),15–36.



88

Moje,E.B.,Ciechanowski,K.M.,Kramer,K.,Ellis,L.,Carrillo,R.&Collazo,T.(2004).Workingtowardsthirdspaceincontentarealiteracy:AnexaminationofeverydayfundsofknowledgeandDiscourse.ReadingResearchQuarterly,39(1),38-70.

NationalInstituteforLiteracy(n.d.).Whatisliteracy?InFrequentlyAskedQuestions.Retrievedfrom

http://www.nifl.gov/nifl/faqs.htmlNewLondonGroup(1996).Apedagogyofmultiliteracies:Designingsocialfutures.HarvardEducational

Review,66(1),60-92.Papert,S.(1993).Mindstorms:Children,computers,andpowerfulideas.NewYork:BasicBooks,ADivisionof

HarperCollinsPublishers,Inc.Resnick,M.,Maloney,J.,Monroy-Hernandez,A.,Rusk,N.,Eastmond,E.,Brennan,K.,etal.(2009).Scratch:

Programmingforall.CommunicationsoftheACM,52(11),60–67.Saldaña,J.(2013).Thecodingmanualforqualitativeresearchers.ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.Seglem,R.,Witte.S.,&Beemer,J.(2012).21stcenturyliteraciesintheclassroom:Creating windowsofinterest

andwebsoflearning.JournalofLanguage&LiteracyEducation,8(2),47-65.Siegel,M.(1995).Morethanwords:Thegenerativepotentialoftransmediationforlearning.CanadianJournal

ofEducation,20(4),455–475.Stake,R.E.(2008).Qualitativecasestudies.InN.K.Denzin&Y.S.Lincoln(Eds.),Strategiesofqualitative

inquiry(3rded.,pp.119–150).ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.St.Clair,R.,&Phipps,A.(2008).Ludicliteraciesattheintersectionsofcultures:AninterviewwithJamesPaul

Gee.LanguageandInterculturalCommunication,8(2),91-100.Steinkuehler,C.(2007).Massivelymultiplayeronlinegamingasaconstellationofliteracypractices.E-Learning

andDigitalMedia,4(3),297-318.Steinkuehler,C.(2010).Videogamesanddigitalliteracies.JournalofAdolescentandAdultLiteracy,54(1),61.Strauss,A.,&Corbin,J.(1998).Basicsofqualitativeresearch:Techniquesandproceduresfordeveloping

groundedtheory.ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.

Tedlock,B.(2008).Theobservationofparticipationandtheemergenceofpublicethnography.InN.Denzin&Y.Lincoln(Eds.),Strategiesofqualitativeinquiry.ThousandsOaks,CA:SagePublications,Inc.

Tolentino,L.,Birchfield,D.,Megowan-Romanowicz,C.,Johnson-Glenberg,M.,Kelliher,A.,&Martinez,C.

(2009).Teachingandlearninginthemixed-realityscienceclassroom.JournalofScienceEducationandTechnology,doi:10.1007/s10956-009-9166-2.

Wang,F.,&Hannafin,M.J.(2005).Design-basedresearchandtechnology-enhancedlearning environments.EducationalTechnologyResearchandDevelopment,53(4),5–23.


89

Warburton,E.C.(2011).Ofmeaningsandmovements:Re-Languagingembodimentindance phenomenologyandcognition.DanceResearchJournal,43(2),65-83.Wilson,M.(2002).Sixviewsofembodiedcognition.PsychonomicBulletin&Review,9(4),625-636.Wing,J.M.(2006).Avisionforthe21stCentury:Computationalthinking.CommunicationsoftheACM,49(3), 33-35.



90

Appendix

Includedhereisthe10-questioncomputationalpre-andpost-test.

AppendixIncluded here is the 10-question computational pre- and post-test.


91



92


93

embodying and programming a “constellation” of multimodal...

Documents