Coding by Choice: A Transitional Analysis of Social Participation Patterns and Programming Contributions in the Online Scratch Community

While massive online communities have drawn the attention of researchers and educators on their potential to support active collaborative work, knowledge sharing, and user-generated content, few studies examine participation in these communities at scale. The little research that does exist attends almost solely to adults rather than communities to support youths’ learning and identity development. In this chapter, we tackle two challenges related to understanding social practices that support learning in massive social networking forums where users engage in design. We examined a youth programmer community, called Scratch.mit.edu, that garners the voluntary participation of millions of young people worldwide. We report on site-wide distributions and patterns of participation that illuminate the relevance of different online social practices to ongoing involvement in the online community. Drawing on a random sample of more than 5000 active users of Scratch.mit.edu over a 3-month time period in early 2012, we examine log files that captured the frequency of three types of social practices that contribute to enduring participation: DIY participatory activities, socially supportive actions, and socially engaging interactions. Using latent transition analysis, we found (1) distinct patterns of participation (classes) across three time points (e.g., high networkers who are generally active, commenters who focus mainly on social participation, downloaders engaging in DIY participatory activities), (2) unique migration changes in class membership across time, (3) relatively equal gender representation across these classes, and (4) importance of membership length (or age) in terms of class memberships. In the discussion, we review our approach to analysis and outline implications for the design and study of online communities and tools for youth.

[1]  Andrés Monroy-Hernández,et al.  Designing for remixing : supporting an Online community of amateur creators , 2012 .

[2]  Deborah A. Fields,et al.  Knowing and Throwing Mudballs, Hearts, Pies, and Flowers , 2008, ICLS.

[3]  Carol K. K. Chan,et al.  Students assessing their own collaborative knowledge building , 2006, Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn..

[4]  Jane Margolis,et al.  Stuck in the Shallow End: Education, Race, and Computing , 2017 .

[5]  A. Magnifico Writing for Whom? Cognition, Motivation, and a Writer's Audience , 2010 .

[6]  FisherAllan,et al.  Unlocking the clubhouse , 2002 .

[7]  Eric Rosenbaum,et al.  Scratch: programming for all , 2009, Commun. ACM.

[8]  Amy Bruckman,et al.  Why it works (when it works): success factors in online creative collaboration , 2010, GROUP.

[9]  Patricia G. Lange,et al.  Hanging Out, Messing Around, and Geeking Out: Kids Living and Learning with New Media . , 2010 .

[10]  Alecia Marie Magnifico,et al.  Toward an Affinity Space Methodology: Considerations for Literacy Research , 2012 .

[11]  Deborah A. Fields,et al.  Understanding Collaborative Practices in the Scratch Online Community: Patterns of Participation Among Youth Designers , 2013, CSCL.

[12]  James Paul Gee,et al.  What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy , 2007, CIE.

[13]  Deborah A. Fields,et al.  Entering the Clubhouse: Case Studies of Young Programmers Joining the Online Scratch Communities , 2010, J. Organ. End User Comput..

[14]  Deborah A. Fields,et al.  Connected Play: Tweens in a Virtual World , 2013 .

[15]  Sara M. Grimes,et al.  Kids Online: A New Research Agenda for Understanding Social Networking Forums , 2012 .

[16]  Jeffrey V. Nickerson,et al.  Appropriation and Creativity: User-Initiated Contests in Scratch , 2011, 2011 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[17]  Yasmin B. Kafai,et al.  Programming in the wild: trends in youth computational participation in the online scratch community , 2014, WiPSCE.

[18]  Peter Reimann,et al.  Time is precious: Variable- and event-centred approaches to process analysis in CSCL research , 2009, Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn..

[19]  J. Hagenaars,et al.  Applied Latent Class Analysis , 2003 .

[20]  N. Yee The Proteus Paradox: How Online Games and Virtual Worlds Change Us—And How They Don't , 2014 .

[21]  Deborah A. Fields,et al.  Children's Media Making, but Not Sharing: The Potential and Limitations of Child-Specific Diy Media Websites , 2015 .

[22]  Danah Boyd,et al.  Social network sites: definition, history, and scholarship , 2007, IEEE Engineering Management Review.

[23]  Mitchel Resnick,et al.  Supporting Diverse and Creative Collaboration in the Scratch Online Community , 2016 .

[24]  Stephanie T. Lanza,et al.  Latent Class and Latent Transition Analysis: With Applications in the Social, Behavioral, and Health Sciences , 2009 .

[25]  Deborah A. Fields,et al.  From tools to communities: designs to support online creative collaboration in scratch , 2012, IDC '12.

[26]  Nancy Ares,et al.  Cultural practices in networked classroom learning environments , 2008, Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn..

[27]  Sean C. Duncan,et al.  Scientific Habits of Mind in Virtual Worlds , 2008 .

[28]  Mark Guzdial,et al.  Situating CoWeb: a scholarship of application , 2006, Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn..

[29]  Yochai Benkler,et al.  The wealth of networks: how social production transforms markets and freedom , 2006 .

[30]  Scott E. Caplan,et al.  Who plays, how much, and why? Debunking the stereotypical gamer profile , 2008, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[31]  Jan van Aalst,et al.  Distinguishing knowledge-sharing, knowledge-construction, and knowledge-creation discourses , 2009, Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn..

[32]  M. Scardamalia Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge , 2002 .

[33]  Tom Boellstorff Coming of Age in Second Life: An Anthropologist Explores the Virtually Human , 2008 .

[34]  Jaideep Srivastava,et al.  Please Scroll down for Article Communication Methods and Measures the Virtual Worlds Exploratorium: Using Large-scale Data and Computational Techniques for Communication Research the Virtual Worlds Exploratorium: Using Large-scale Data and Computational Techniques for Communication Research , 2022 .

[35]  M. Scardamalia,et al.  Designs for Collective Cognitive Responsibility in Knowledge-Building Communities , 2009 .

[36]  Yasmin B. Kafai,et al.  Connected Code: Why Children Need to Learn Programming , 2014 .

[37]  Mitchel Resnick,et al.  Programming by choice: urban youth learning programming with scratch , 2008, SIGCSE '08.

[38]  Dmitri Williams,et al.  Bridging the methodological divide in game research , 2005 .

[39]  Yasmin B. Kafai,et al.  Beyond Barbie and Mortal Kombat: New Perspectives on Gender and Gaming , 2008 .

[40]  M. Scardamalia,et al.  Higher Levels of Agency for Children in Knowledge Building: A Challenge for the Design of New Knowledge Media , 1991 .

[41]  Angela M. O'Donnell The Role of Peers and Group Learning , 2006 .

[42]  Kristin A. Searle,et al.  Social Interactions in Virtual Worlds: Patterns and Profiles of Tween Relationship Play , 2012 .

[43]  Deborah A. Fields,et al.  “I have a tutorial for this”: the language of online peer support in the scratch programming community , 2015, IDC.

[44]  Deborah A. Fields,et al.  The programmers’ collective: fostering participatory culture by making music videos in a high school Scratch coding workshop , 2015, Interact. Learn. Environ..

[45]  Deborah A. Fields,et al.  A connective ethnography of peer knowledge sharing and diffusion in a tween virtual world , 2009, Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn..