Editorial

Abstract

We are very excited to introduce this issue of Computer Science Education. Readers will quickly identify a common theme of computational thinking across these papers, but the papers have more in common than just that. As a group, these papers challenge readers to consider for whom is computing, how do we support a more inclusive and equitable environment for the full range of learners, and what computational tools and pedagogical scaffolds do our teachers need to help learners do so? We hope that you will enjoy this engaging issue. The first paper, by Worsley and Bar-El, explores obstacles to engagement with makerspaces and “making” for learners with disabilities. They describe the design and implementation of a university course on inclusive making, followed by application of qualitative methods to explore why students choose to enroll in the interdisciplinary course and what they learn as a result about accessibility in this context. Data presented from three course offerings suggests that the nature of the course attracts a diverse group of students, and that their own identity beliefs play an important role in self-selecting into the course. Their analysis of course projects shows the variety of ways students applied their knowledge of course content to envision a more inclusive environment for making. This work provides an insightful framework for others seeking to expose students to elements of inclusive design. Prado, Jacob, and Warschauer continue our consideration of inclusive computing education by turning our attention to a comparative study of computational thinking in two primary school classrooms: one that includes students with and without disabilities, and one that includes students who have and have not been identified as part of a gifted and talented program. Their rich qualitative analysis underscores the importance of differentiated and scaffolded instructional strategies for teaching computational thinking to diverse groups of students, and it reminds us that the strategies needed may look different for different populations. In progressing towards a future of CSforAll, this paper challenges us to think broadly about how teachers adapt to meet all students where they are. The third paper in this issue, by Rich, Franklin, Strickland, Isaacs, and Eatinger, also focuses on how primary school students develop their understanding of computational thinking. However, their work explores the trajectory of mastering the concept of variables within integrated mathematics and computing activities. Their literature-driven analysis identified eight distinct goals and four progressively sophisticated levels of student thinking with respect to variables. The authors then instantiate this progression through a concrete set of activities to conceptually demonstrate its utility in guiding instructional design and sequencing of activities. Elaborating the relationships and dependencies of knowledge, skills, and abilities within computing at age-appropriate levels, as the authors have done in this paper, is an important contribution in establishing evidence-based pedagogies for computing. COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION 2022, VOL. 32, NO. 2, 153–154 https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2022.2085908