Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Editorial for the Second Special Issue on Conceptualizing and Using Theory in Computing Education Research

Editorial for the Second Special Issue on Conceptualizing and Using Theory in Computing Education... Editorial for the Second Special Issue on “Conceptualizing and Using Theory in Computing Education Research” LAURI MALMI, Aalto University JOSH TENENBERG, University of Washington Tacoma, USA In this editorial, we introduce the second set of papers for the special issue “Conceptualizing and Using Theory in CER”. These papers focus on meta level discussion on theories in CER, addressing the definition of theories, what theoretical contributions have been developed for CER, how theories have been used, and what other type of contributions there are in the field. The issue also includes guest editors’ own reflections on theory. CCS Concepts: • Social and professional topics → Computing education; Additional Key Words and Phrases: Theory, theory use, theory definition, computing education research ACM Reference format: Lauri Malmi and Josh Tenenberg. 2023. Editorial for the Second Special Issue on “Conceptualizing and Using Theory in Computing Education Research”. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. 23, 1, Article 1 (January 2023), 4 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3570729 We are happy to introduce the second special issue in ACM TOCE which addresses theories in CER. The first issue appeared as Issue 4 / 2022 and it included papers in which each focused on a specific theory or a family of theories, commenting on what each theory might contribute (or has already contributed) to CER. These papers addressed self-regulation theory, cognitive load theory, dual process theories, analogical transfer, interest development, and social capital. For this second issue we include papers that deal with theories on a meta level, analyzing them as objects for investigation. These papers address questions such as, what theories have been de- veloped in the CER domain, what characteristics do they have, how have educational and psycho- logical theories been combined and used together in CER, what is the role of theories and models in CER, and what other scientific contributions there are in addition to theories, which should be recognized as having value within our community. That we can have this kind of scholarly dis- course, we believe, represents an attempt by these authors to view our shared terrain of CER from a higher vantage point than is common, and to further the CER enterprise that this perspective affords. In the following, we briefly introduce the papers in this second special issue, and end with a few reflective comments on our experience in co-editing these special issues. In his editorial, “Reflections on Theory ”, Malmi discusses how his personal conceptions of theory and experiences in using it in research have evolved over years from school years till his current professor duties. This includes discussion of theory in natural science contexts, mathematics, Authors’ addresses: L. Malmi, Department of Computer Science, Aalto University, P.O. Box 00076 AALTO, Finland; email: Lauri.Malmi@aalto.fi; J. Tenenberg, School of Engineering & Technology, University of Washington Tacoma, Tacoma WA 98402, USA; email: jtenenbg@uw.edu. © 2023 Association for Computing Machinery. 1946-6226/2023/01-ART1 $15.00 https://doi.org/10.1145/3570729 ACM Transactions on Computing Education, Vol. 23, No. 1, Article 1. Publication date: January 2023. 1:2 L. Malmi and J. Tenenberg logic and computer science, as well as encountering theories related to human behavior in social sciences. From this he proceeds to discuss aspects of research quality as a motivation for carrying out reviews in the use of theory in CER, and how this second special issue is one step in the path of promoting research quality and diversity in CER. Finally, he addresses the question of progress in research with some brief points of view from philosophy of social sciences. In “Conceptualizing the Researcher-Theory Relation”, Tenenberg provides a discussion of the ways in which researchers in CER become caught up in the theories that they encounter and use. In recounting his own experience with theory in CER, Tenenberg aims to address and account for how theory is not only overlooked and ignored by researchers but also taken up from other disciplines and applied in CER. By drawing on phenomenological and pragmatist philosophy, particularly to their conceptions of language, knowledge, and mind, Tenenberg argues that theory also and recip- rocally serves as a means by which researchers and their conceptual understandings, and the re- search practices based upon them, are themselves shaped. Because of the way that theoretical con- ceptions can fall into an unrecognized background of taken for granted assumptions, researchers can be in the grip of theory without ever recognizing that this is the case, thereby preventing their adoption of new theoretical insights that might more meaningfully give insight into the central phenomena of teaching and learning in the discipline. In bringing some of these background as- sumptions into explicit awareness, Tenenberg maintains that this grip might thereby be loosened. The paper “Grand Theories or Design Guidelines? Perspectives on the Role of Theory in Computing Education Research” identifies some of the conceptual muddles and disagreements about the definition and role of theory within CER. As a means to advance the discussion and to clarify the terms of debate, the authors draw on some of the historically developed meta-theoretical discussion about theory from the philosophical literature, the philosophy of social science in particular. The authors provide three key suggestions for making positive progress for our field. The first is in taking a model-based view of theory-like objects as a way to avoid some of the “conceptual baggage” associated with the concept theory; second in recognizing and drawing upon philosophical understandings about the nature of design, engineering, and social science rather than those of the natural sciences; and third in developing a consensus on what constitutes an appropriate CER-specific research paradigm and the role that theoretical entities take within it. In the paper “Learning Theories Use and Relationships in Computing Education Research”,the authors investigate in depth what are the key learning theories that have been cited in CER litera- ture. They first build a comprehensive list of 84 learning theories, followed by an analysis of CER papers that cite these theories. Their key contribution is looking at the collected information from the perspective on which theories have been cited together. To further elaborate this, they present a taxonomy to describe how the theories have been combined together. For example, whether the theories have been discussed separately or together, have they been compared critically or used in an analysis, artifact development, or theory development. The authors have identified several communities of theories which have been used together. These include communities of behaviorist and cognitivist learning, working memory, social cognition, motivation learning the- ories, behaviorist and cognitivist meta-theories, as well as computing education learning theories. Finally, they discuss examples of different types of combinations in the citing literature and what their findings imply for the field, thus broadening our understanding of how theories can enrich research. The paper “Development and Use of Domain-Specific Learning Theories, Models and Instruments in Computing Education” presents a meta level perspective of domain-specific theoretical constructs that have been published in three central venues, ACM TOCE, Computer Science Edu- cation, and ICER conferences during the years 2005–2020. The authors identify constructs that are associated within six domain areas covering assessment, emotions/attitudes/beliefs/self-efficacy, ACM Transactions on Computing Education, Vol. 23, No. 1, Article 1. Publication date: January 2023. Editorial for the Second Special Issue on “Conceptualizing and Using Theory in CER” 1:3 errors or misconceptions, students’ learning, understanding, or behaviors as well as performance aspects. The results include how the constructs were developed, what purposes they have been developed for, and how they have been actually used in literature which cites the original paper. This is followed by numerous examples and discussion on findings, including strategies on how new theories could be developed in the future. In the paper “The Different Types of Contributions to Knowledge (in CER): All Needed But Not All Recognised”, authors Draper and Maguire argue that as important as theory may be, there are other important contributors to progress in CER that are in danger of being overlooked, especially if theory is taken as a criterion that all CER papers must satisfy in order to be recognized as research. The authors present a taxonomy of twelve categories of “contribution to knowledge” in CER, defining each, and exemplifying the category in CER or in other scientific disciplines when a category has been overlooked historically in CER. In addition, they provide a set of framing assumptions that serve as the basis by which these categories have been formed and should be understood. In some senses, the authors challenge some of the assumptions around which this special issue has been based, thereby provoking dialogue about theory (its conception, its uses, its value in our shared enterprise) at a meta-level, without ever assuming that theory is what we should be spending much of our time talking and arguing about. “A Dialog about the Special Issues on Theory” concludes this special issue. Understanding our purposes in including this paper and what it represents may help the reader to benefit from it. On reading the other papers in these special issues, we discerned that the authors were providing different perspectives on how theories can support research, when they should be used or even should not be used, how they should be thought about, as well as how we as a research community should proceed in developing domain-specific theories for our field. We therefore decided that there may be some gain in putting some of these authors into a direct dialog, where they could respond to some of the issues raised by one another. We do not aim at building consensus on these questions, but rather through a dialogue make different perspectives and arguments better visible for the readers of the special issue. Because of the special focus of this special issue in treating theory as explicit objects of discourse, and in order to limit the scope and manageability of the dialogical process, we invited all and only the authors of papers in this second special issue to participate. Given Amy Ko’s role as Editor-in-Chief of this journal, and her prior interest in theory, we asked if she would guide and oversee the discussion, and summarize it for publication with input from the participants, to which she agreed. She made all of the papers of both special issues available to those who agreed to participate, invited them to read those papers that caught their attention, and guided the participants through a prompted “slow discussion” to encourage the back-and-forth of productive dialog. At the end of this discussion period, Amy summarized the conversation in a draft document, and led multiple rounds of feedback from the participants and revision of the document. This paper provides additional insight for understanding several of the papers in these special issues through the themes and concepts highlighted by these authors. 1 SOME FINAL NOTES At the end of a long process of compiling these two special issues, we wish to add some personal reflections. Overall, it was an overwhelming surprise how many submissions (in total 77 extended abstracts) we received after the call for papers for the special issue that was published almost two years ago. Initially, we were worried about whether we would get enough submissions to be able to get a good selection of papers. We both had assumed that “theory” is a topic which interests only a small number of people in the field. This turned out to be false, which was a highly positive experience ACM Transactions on Computing Education, Vol. 23, No. 1, Article 1. Publication date: January 2023. 1:4 L. Malmi and J. Tenenberg for us. We also received many submissions from people whose names were unfamiliar to us, and we concluded that the special issue had raised interest among many people who more regularly publish in educational research venues. The positive response from the CER community raised the challenge of which papers should be included, so that the special issue, as a whole, would best benefit the community from our perspective. This decision was not straightforward. There were many interesting proposals with a lot of promise. Should we have good examples of using theory? Reflections on using theory? Introductions or reviews of theories rarely used in the field? Meta studies? Philosophical essays? We decided that because many regular papers already provide good examples of using theory, the last three types of papers would be most appropriate from our perspective to support and enrich the field in using theories. Being leaders in the process for compiling these special issues, we have had to reflect on what we understand with theory and its role in CER, how theories are used, and what impact they might have on research and the researchers who encounter and use them. This has led to many fabulous discussions between us, which have deepened our own understanding of research and theory. What does theory mean? What terminology should we use? What is the role of theory in research, and whether it is always needed? Especially Draper and Maquire’s paper on “Different Types of Contributions to Knowledge” sparked valuable considerations from the reviewers and us on the values and possible biases in the field. We are thankful to Chris Hundhausen and Amy Ko for providing us the opportunity to compile this special issue and giving their personal support and encouragement during the whole process. Allowing us to select papers for two special issues, instead of only one which we had originally thought, was very helpful. We present our thanks to all authors and reviewers who met the given deadlines very well, and thus the whole process was not delayed from our original plans. We are thankful for the external reviewers who supported the review process by giving their valuable review feedback and suggestions to improve the papers: Robin Adams, Andrew Csizmadia, Peter Denning, Sally Fincher, Orit Hazzan, Maria Knobelsdorf, Amy Ko, Yifat Ben-David Kolikant, Briana Morrison, Laurie Murphy, Kristin Searle, and Neena Thota. Overall, we hope that these papers make a good contribution to support the CER community. Lauri & Josh ACM Transactions on Computing Education, Vol. 23, No. 1, Article 1. Publication date: January 2023. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE) Association for Computing Machinery

Editorial for the Second Special Issue on Conceptualizing and Using Theory in Computing Education Research

Loading next page...
 
/lp/association-for-computing-machinery/editorial-for-the-second-special-issue-on-conceptualizing-and-using-82vYL56BN2

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
Copyright
Copyright © 2023 Association for Computing Machinery.
ISSN
1946-6226
eISSN
1946-6226
DOI
10.1145/3570729
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Editorial for the Second Special Issue on “Conceptualizing and Using Theory in Computing Education Research” LAURI MALMI, Aalto University JOSH TENENBERG, University of Washington Tacoma, USA In this editorial, we introduce the second set of papers for the special issue “Conceptualizing and Using Theory in CER”. These papers focus on meta level discussion on theories in CER, addressing the definition of theories, what theoretical contributions have been developed for CER, how theories have been used, and what other type of contributions there are in the field. The issue also includes guest editors’ own reflections on theory. CCS Concepts: • Social and professional topics → Computing education; Additional Key Words and Phrases: Theory, theory use, theory definition, computing education research ACM Reference format: Lauri Malmi and Josh Tenenberg. 2023. Editorial for the Second Special Issue on “Conceptualizing and Using Theory in Computing Education Research”. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. 23, 1, Article 1 (January 2023), 4 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3570729 We are happy to introduce the second special issue in ACM TOCE which addresses theories in CER. The first issue appeared as Issue 4 / 2022 and it included papers in which each focused on a specific theory or a family of theories, commenting on what each theory might contribute (or has already contributed) to CER. These papers addressed self-regulation theory, cognitive load theory, dual process theories, analogical transfer, interest development, and social capital. For this second issue we include papers that deal with theories on a meta level, analyzing them as objects for investigation. These papers address questions such as, what theories have been de- veloped in the CER domain, what characteristics do they have, how have educational and psycho- logical theories been combined and used together in CER, what is the role of theories and models in CER, and what other scientific contributions there are in addition to theories, which should be recognized as having value within our community. That we can have this kind of scholarly dis- course, we believe, represents an attempt by these authors to view our shared terrain of CER from a higher vantage point than is common, and to further the CER enterprise that this perspective affords. In the following, we briefly introduce the papers in this second special issue, and end with a few reflective comments on our experience in co-editing these special issues. In his editorial, “Reflections on Theory ”, Malmi discusses how his personal conceptions of theory and experiences in using it in research have evolved over years from school years till his current professor duties. This includes discussion of theory in natural science contexts, mathematics, Authors’ addresses: L. Malmi, Department of Computer Science, Aalto University, P.O. Box 00076 AALTO, Finland; email: Lauri.Malmi@aalto.fi; J. Tenenberg, School of Engineering & Technology, University of Washington Tacoma, Tacoma WA 98402, USA; email: jtenenbg@uw.edu. © 2023 Association for Computing Machinery. 1946-6226/2023/01-ART1 $15.00 https://doi.org/10.1145/3570729 ACM Transactions on Computing Education, Vol. 23, No. 1, Article 1. Publication date: January 2023. 1:2 L. Malmi and J. Tenenberg logic and computer science, as well as encountering theories related to human behavior in social sciences. From this he proceeds to discuss aspects of research quality as a motivation for carrying out reviews in the use of theory in CER, and how this second special issue is one step in the path of promoting research quality and diversity in CER. Finally, he addresses the question of progress in research with some brief points of view from philosophy of social sciences. In “Conceptualizing the Researcher-Theory Relation”, Tenenberg provides a discussion of the ways in which researchers in CER become caught up in the theories that they encounter and use. In recounting his own experience with theory in CER, Tenenberg aims to address and account for how theory is not only overlooked and ignored by researchers but also taken up from other disciplines and applied in CER. By drawing on phenomenological and pragmatist philosophy, particularly to their conceptions of language, knowledge, and mind, Tenenberg argues that theory also and recip- rocally serves as a means by which researchers and their conceptual understandings, and the re- search practices based upon them, are themselves shaped. Because of the way that theoretical con- ceptions can fall into an unrecognized background of taken for granted assumptions, researchers can be in the grip of theory without ever recognizing that this is the case, thereby preventing their adoption of new theoretical insights that might more meaningfully give insight into the central phenomena of teaching and learning in the discipline. In bringing some of these background as- sumptions into explicit awareness, Tenenberg maintains that this grip might thereby be loosened. The paper “Grand Theories or Design Guidelines? Perspectives on the Role of Theory in Computing Education Research” identifies some of the conceptual muddles and disagreements about the definition and role of theory within CER. As a means to advance the discussion and to clarify the terms of debate, the authors draw on some of the historically developed meta-theoretical discussion about theory from the philosophical literature, the philosophy of social science in particular. The authors provide three key suggestions for making positive progress for our field. The first is in taking a model-based view of theory-like objects as a way to avoid some of the “conceptual baggage” associated with the concept theory; second in recognizing and drawing upon philosophical understandings about the nature of design, engineering, and social science rather than those of the natural sciences; and third in developing a consensus on what constitutes an appropriate CER-specific research paradigm and the role that theoretical entities take within it. In the paper “Learning Theories Use and Relationships in Computing Education Research”,the authors investigate in depth what are the key learning theories that have been cited in CER litera- ture. They first build a comprehensive list of 84 learning theories, followed by an analysis of CER papers that cite these theories. Their key contribution is looking at the collected information from the perspective on which theories have been cited together. To further elaborate this, they present a taxonomy to describe how the theories have been combined together. For example, whether the theories have been discussed separately or together, have they been compared critically or used in an analysis, artifact development, or theory development. The authors have identified several communities of theories which have been used together. These include communities of behaviorist and cognitivist learning, working memory, social cognition, motivation learning the- ories, behaviorist and cognitivist meta-theories, as well as computing education learning theories. Finally, they discuss examples of different types of combinations in the citing literature and what their findings imply for the field, thus broadening our understanding of how theories can enrich research. The paper “Development and Use of Domain-Specific Learning Theories, Models and Instruments in Computing Education” presents a meta level perspective of domain-specific theoretical constructs that have been published in three central venues, ACM TOCE, Computer Science Edu- cation, and ICER conferences during the years 2005–2020. The authors identify constructs that are associated within six domain areas covering assessment, emotions/attitudes/beliefs/self-efficacy, ACM Transactions on Computing Education, Vol. 23, No. 1, Article 1. Publication date: January 2023. Editorial for the Second Special Issue on “Conceptualizing and Using Theory in CER” 1:3 errors or misconceptions, students’ learning, understanding, or behaviors as well as performance aspects. The results include how the constructs were developed, what purposes they have been developed for, and how they have been actually used in literature which cites the original paper. This is followed by numerous examples and discussion on findings, including strategies on how new theories could be developed in the future. In the paper “The Different Types of Contributions to Knowledge (in CER): All Needed But Not All Recognised”, authors Draper and Maguire argue that as important as theory may be, there are other important contributors to progress in CER that are in danger of being overlooked, especially if theory is taken as a criterion that all CER papers must satisfy in order to be recognized as research. The authors present a taxonomy of twelve categories of “contribution to knowledge” in CER, defining each, and exemplifying the category in CER or in other scientific disciplines when a category has been overlooked historically in CER. In addition, they provide a set of framing assumptions that serve as the basis by which these categories have been formed and should be understood. In some senses, the authors challenge some of the assumptions around which this special issue has been based, thereby provoking dialogue about theory (its conception, its uses, its value in our shared enterprise) at a meta-level, without ever assuming that theory is what we should be spending much of our time talking and arguing about. “A Dialog about the Special Issues on Theory” concludes this special issue. Understanding our purposes in including this paper and what it represents may help the reader to benefit from it. On reading the other papers in these special issues, we discerned that the authors were providing different perspectives on how theories can support research, when they should be used or even should not be used, how they should be thought about, as well as how we as a research community should proceed in developing domain-specific theories for our field. We therefore decided that there may be some gain in putting some of these authors into a direct dialog, where they could respond to some of the issues raised by one another. We do not aim at building consensus on these questions, but rather through a dialogue make different perspectives and arguments better visible for the readers of the special issue. Because of the special focus of this special issue in treating theory as explicit objects of discourse, and in order to limit the scope and manageability of the dialogical process, we invited all and only the authors of papers in this second special issue to participate. Given Amy Ko’s role as Editor-in-Chief of this journal, and her prior interest in theory, we asked if she would guide and oversee the discussion, and summarize it for publication with input from the participants, to which she agreed. She made all of the papers of both special issues available to those who agreed to participate, invited them to read those papers that caught their attention, and guided the participants through a prompted “slow discussion” to encourage the back-and-forth of productive dialog. At the end of this discussion period, Amy summarized the conversation in a draft document, and led multiple rounds of feedback from the participants and revision of the document. This paper provides additional insight for understanding several of the papers in these special issues through the themes and concepts highlighted by these authors. 1 SOME FINAL NOTES At the end of a long process of compiling these two special issues, we wish to add some personal reflections. Overall, it was an overwhelming surprise how many submissions (in total 77 extended abstracts) we received after the call for papers for the special issue that was published almost two years ago. Initially, we were worried about whether we would get enough submissions to be able to get a good selection of papers. We both had assumed that “theory” is a topic which interests only a small number of people in the field. This turned out to be false, which was a highly positive experience ACM Transactions on Computing Education, Vol. 23, No. 1, Article 1. Publication date: January 2023. 1:4 L. Malmi and J. Tenenberg for us. We also received many submissions from people whose names were unfamiliar to us, and we concluded that the special issue had raised interest among many people who more regularly publish in educational research venues. The positive response from the CER community raised the challenge of which papers should be included, so that the special issue, as a whole, would best benefit the community from our perspective. This decision was not straightforward. There were many interesting proposals with a lot of promise. Should we have good examples of using theory? Reflections on using theory? Introductions or reviews of theories rarely used in the field? Meta studies? Philosophical essays? We decided that because many regular papers already provide good examples of using theory, the last three types of papers would be most appropriate from our perspective to support and enrich the field in using theories. Being leaders in the process for compiling these special issues, we have had to reflect on what we understand with theory and its role in CER, how theories are used, and what impact they might have on research and the researchers who encounter and use them. This has led to many fabulous discussions between us, which have deepened our own understanding of research and theory. What does theory mean? What terminology should we use? What is the role of theory in research, and whether it is always needed? Especially Draper and Maquire’s paper on “Different Types of Contributions to Knowledge” sparked valuable considerations from the reviewers and us on the values and possible biases in the field. We are thankful to Chris Hundhausen and Amy Ko for providing us the opportunity to compile this special issue and giving their personal support and encouragement during the whole process. Allowing us to select papers for two special issues, instead of only one which we had originally thought, was very helpful. We present our thanks to all authors and reviewers who met the given deadlines very well, and thus the whole process was not delayed from our original plans. We are thankful for the external reviewers who supported the review process by giving their valuable review feedback and suggestions to improve the papers: Robin Adams, Andrew Csizmadia, Peter Denning, Sally Fincher, Orit Hazzan, Maria Knobelsdorf, Amy Ko, Yifat Ben-David Kolikant, Briana Morrison, Laurie Murphy, Kristin Searle, and Neena Thota. Overall, we hope that these papers make a good contribution to support the CER community. Lauri & Josh ACM Transactions on Computing Education, Vol. 23, No. 1, Article 1. Publication date: January 2023.

Journal

ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE)Association for Computing Machinery

Published: Jan 19, 2023

Keywords: Theory

There are no references for this article.