Implementación de un currículo de programación en Uruguay
docentes frente al poder, la autonomía y las dinámicas del aula
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18861/cied.2025.16.2.4145Palabras clave:
primera infancia, programación, dinámicas de poder, autonomía, agencia, adaptaciónResumen
En el marco del esfuerzo global por desarrollar el pensamiento computacional y las habilidades de programación en la infancia desde finales de los años 90, este estudio examina las dinámicas entre docentes de segundo grado y sus estudiantes, durante la implementación de un plan de estudios de programación en escuelas públicas de dos departamentos de Uruguay. A través del análisis narrativo, los hallazgos se organizan en tres grandes temas que ilustran cómo se negociaron y, en algunos casos, se redefinieron las estructuras de poder entre docentes y estudiantes al introducir nuevas tecnologías en el aula. Diecisiete docentes participaron en grupos focales de 45 minutos, donde compartieron sus logros, desafíos y estrategias para gestionar la agencia de los estudiantes y su demanda de independencia en los procesos de aprendizaje. Basado en el enfoque de Desarrollo Tecnológico Positivo (PTD, por sus siglas en inglés), este estudio destaca el valor de la flexibilidad en las prácticas pedagógicas, alentando a los docentes a adaptar aún más sus lecciones y responder a las necesidades, ritmos y preferencias de sus estudiantes para promover entornos inclusivos, adecuados al desarrollo y con una integración significativa de la tecnología. Además, los resultados subrayan cómo la tecnología no actúa simplemente como una herramienta pasiva de instrucción, sino como un medio para la autoexpresión, la comunicación y la apropiación del proceso de aprendizaje, una vez que las estructuras de poder se tornan más fluidas y compartidas.
Descargas
Citas
Andersen, D. (2015). Stories of change in drug treatment: A narrative analysis of ‘whats’ and ‘hows’ in institutional storytelling. Sociology of Health & Illness, 37(5), 668–682. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.12228
Baker, A. R., Lin, T., Chen, J., Paul, N., Anderson, R. C., & Nguyen-Jahiel, K. (2017). Effects of teacher framing on student engagement during collaborative reasoning discussions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 51, 253–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.08.007
Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(2), 164–180.
Bers, M. U. (2006). The role of new technologies to foster positive youth development. Applied Developmental Science, 10(4), 200–219.
Bers, M. U. (2010). Beyond computer literacy: Supporting youth’s positive development through technology. New Directions for Youth Development, (128), 13–23.
Bers, M. U. (2012). Designing Digital Experiences for Positive Youth Development: From Playpen to Playground. Oxford.
Bers, M. U., Seddighin, S., & Sullivan, A. (2013). Ready for robotics: Bringing together the T and E of STEM in early childhood teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 21(3), 355–377.
Bers, M. U., Strawhacker, A., & Vizner, M. (2018). The design of early childhood makerspaces to support positive technological development: Two case studies. Library Hi Tech, 36(1), 75–96.
Bers, M. U. (2019). Coding as another language: A pedagogical approach for teaching computer science in early childhood. Journal of Computers in Education, 6(4), 499–528.
Bers, M. U. (2020). Coding as a Playground: Programming and Computational Thinking in the Early Childhood Classroom, Second Edition. Routledge Press.
Bers, M. U, Strawhacker A., & Sullivan A. (2022). The state of the field of computational thinking in early childhood education. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/3354387a-en
Bers, M. U, Blake-West, J., Kapoor, M. G., Levinson, T., Relkin, E., Unahalekhaka, A., & Yang, Z. (2023). Coding as another language: Research-based curriculum for early childhood computer science. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 64, 394–404.
Cofré, H., González-Weil, C., Vergara, C., Santibáñez, D., Ahumada, G., Furman, M., Podesta, M. E., Camacho, J., Gallego, R., & Pérez, R. (2015). Science teacher education in South America: The case of Argentina, Colombia and Chile. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26(1), 45–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-015-9420-9
Cornelius, L. L., & Herrenkohl, L. R. (2004). Power in the classroom: How the classroom environment shapes students' relationships with each other and with concepts. Cognition and instruction, 22(4), 467-498.
Crowhurst, P., & Cornish, L. (2020). Factors in agency development: A supervisory teaching perspective. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 45(9). http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2020v45n9.2
Fonkert, K. L. (2010). Student interactions in technology-rich classrooms. The Mathematics Teacher, 104(4), 302-307.
Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality: Volume 1: An introduction (R. Hurley, Trans.). Pantheon Books. (Original work published 1976)
Frick T. W. (2020). Education Systems and Technology in 1990, 2020, and Beyond. TechTrends: for leaders in education & training, 64(5), 693–703. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-020-00527-y
Fu, G., & Clarke, A. (2019). Moving beyond the agency-structure dialectic in pre-collegiate science education: Positionality, engagement, and emergence. Studies in Science Education, 55(2), 215–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2020.1735756
García-Moya, I., Moreno, C., & Brooks, F. M. (2019). The ‘balancing acts’ of building positive relationships with students: Secondary school teachers’ perspectives in England and Spain. Teaching and Teacher Education, 86, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.102883
Gee, J. P. (2021). Thinking, learning, and reading: The situated sociocultural mind. In D. Kirshner & J. A. Whitson (Eds.), Situated Cognition (pp. 235–259). Routledge.
Global Education Monitoring Report Team, & Sadosky Foundation. (2023). Computer science as a curriculum subject in Latin America. UNESCO.
Helm, J. H., Katz, L. G., & Wilson, R. (2023). Young investigators: The project approach in the early years. Teachers College Press.
Higgins, D., Dennis, A., Stoddard, A., Maier, A. G., & Howitt, S. (2019). ‘Power to empower’: Conceptions of teaching and learning in a pedagogical co-design partnership. Higher Education Research & Development, 38(6), 1154–1167.
Jara, I., Hepp, P., Rodriguez, J., & Claro, M. (2018). Policies and practices for teaching computer science in Latin America. Microsoft.
Lee, J. A., & Kim, C. J. (2019). Teaching and learning science in authoritative classrooms: Teachers’ power and students’ approval in Korean elementary classrooms. Research in Science Education, 49(5), 1367-1393.
Lerner, R. M., Almerigi, J. B., Theokas, C., & Lerner, J. V. (2005). Positive Youth Development: A View of the Issues. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 25(1), 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431604273211
Mameli, C., Grazia, V., & Molinari, L. (2020). Agency, responsibility, and equity in teacher versus student-centered school activities: A comparison between teachers’ and learners’ perceptions. Journal of Educational Change, 21(2), 345-361.
Manches, A., & Plowman, L. (2017). Computing education in children’s early years: A call for debate. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(1), 91–201.
Mason, S. L., & Rich, P. J. (2019). Preparing elementary school teachers to teach computing, coding, and computational thinking. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 19(4), 790–824.
McLean, S. R. (2016). Disturbing praxis: A Foucauldian analysis of student subjectivities and classroom pedagogies in public schools [Doctoral dissertation, University of Saskatchewan].
Millei, Z. (2012). Thinking differently about guidance: Power, children’s autonomy and democratic environments. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 10(1), 88–99.
Nelson, E. J. (2014). Is this a student’s voice? Students and teachers re-negotiate power through governance partnerships in the classroom [Doctoral dissertation, University of Waikato].
Nores, M. (2020). The economics of early childhood interventions. In S. Bradley & C. Green (Eds.), The Economics of Education (2nd ed., 229–238). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815391-8.00017-3
Ostroff, W. L. (2016). Cultivating curiosity in K-12 classrooms: How to promote and sustain deep learning. ASCD.
Papert, S. (1980). Computers for children. In S. Papert (Ed.), Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas (pp. 3–18). Basic Books.
Pirrie, A., & Rafanell, I. (2020). Re-conceptualising authority relations in education: A micro-situational approach. Critical Studies in Education, 61(1), 101–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2017.1343198
Pollock, J. E., & Tolone, L. J. (2020). Improving student learning one teacher at a time. ASCD.
Robertson, G. (2024). Speaking Freely and Frankly in a School Context: A Foucauldian Approach to Schooling [Doctoral dissertation, University of East London].
Rogers, M. F. (1974). Instrumental and infra-resources: The bases of power. American journal of sociology, 79(6), 1418–1433.
Romiszowski, A. J. (2016). Designing instructional systems: Decision making in course planning and curriculum design. Routledge.
Siegfried, J. L. (2021). Student Perspectives of Pedagogy and the Development of Autonomy, Metacognition, and Critical Thinking: A Narrative Inquiry Study of Student Experiences to Inform and Define Meaningful Practice [Doctoral dissertation, Northeastern University].
Stolp, E., Moate, J., Saarikallio, S., Pakarinen, E., & Lerkkanen, M. K. (2022). Teacher beliefs about student agency in whole-class playing. Music Education Research, 24(4), 467–481. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613808.2022.2098264
Stroupe, D. (2014). Examining classroom science practice communities: How teachers and students negotiate epistemic agency and learn science‐as‐practice. Science Education, 98(3), 487–516.
Tanner, J. C., Candland, T., & Odden, W. S. (2015). Later impacts of early childhood interventions: A systematic review. Independent Evaluation Group, World Bank Group.
Vee, A. (2013). Understanding computer programming as a literacy. Literacy in Composition Studies, 1(2), 42–64.
Von Duyke, K. S. (2013). Students’ autonomy, agency, and emergent learning interests in two open democratic schools [Doctoral dissertation, University of Delaware].
Willis, R. (2018). The use of composite narratives to present interview findings. Qualitative Research, 19(4), 471-480. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794118787711
Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215
Wing, J. (2011). Research notebook: Computational thinking—What and why. The link magazine, 6, 20-23.
Yadav, A., Krist, C., Good, J., & Caeli, E. N. (2018). Computational thinking in elementary classrooms: Measuring teacher understanding of computational ideas for teaching science. Computer Science Education, 28(4), 371-400.
