Oh girls just wanna have fun! Oh girls just wanna write code!

Outline

1. Introduction

Content: Each student introduces herself and briefly explains the concept of connecting programming with real-life activities (music, cooking, games).

Engagement: Ask one question to the visitor: “Have you ever thought programming could be like making your favorite dish or song?”

Tactic: Quick icebreaker to spark curiosity and relate programming to daily life.

2. Demonstration of Fun Programming Activity

Content:

Cooking example: showing a “recipe” coded in a simple programming flow (if-else, loops).

Music example: creating a short melody with code using a visual tool or simple Swift playground.

Engagement: Visitors try a small part of the activity themselves (e.g., choosing ingredients or musical notes that correspond to code).

Tactic: Hands-on, peer-to-peer mini activity; each visitor can see the immediate result of code.

3. Technical Explanation

Content: Each alumna explains the coding concept behind her demonstration (loops, conditionals, variables).

Engagement: Show a visual representation on a tablet or printed board. Ask visitors to predict what the next step in the code will do.

Tactic: Device-based mini quiz or “guess the output” game to encourage interaction.

4. Reflection and Takeaway

Content: Highlight how programming concepts are used in real life and how students can experiment with their own creative ideas.

Engagement: Visitors are invited to think of another everyday scenario where they could “code” something fun.

Tactic: Quick discussion or suggestion from visitors; alumna writes ideas on a small board or sticky notes.

Outcomes

Participants of the session will discover how to implement simple coding and computational thinking projects into their mathematics classrooms.
Participants will create a simple Scratch project as a student would do in their own classroom, which they can take away and use in their own teaching.
Participants will know where to access further resources and should feel empowered and engaged ready to implement some new strategies into their classrooms or schools.
Success will be evidenced immediately in two ways, completed projects that participants can take home, and a quiz results from a fun pre and post session quiz which will also provide useful feedback on their understanding of computational thinking and show progress during the session.

Supporting research

Thumlert, J., de Castell, S., & Jenson, J. (2014). Short cuts and extended techniques: Rethinking relations between technology and educational theory. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 47(8), 786-803.

Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc. Stake, R.E. (2000a). Case studies. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.; pp. 435-454). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Baytak, A., & Land, S.M. (2011). An investigation of the artifacts and process of constructing computer games about environmental science in a fifth grade classroom. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59, 765-782

Bers, M.U., Flannery, L., Kazakoff, E.R., & Sullivan, A. (2014). Computational thinking and tinkering: Exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum. Computers& Education, 72, 145-157.