The document discusses measuring the level of centralized control or mindset in student projects created using the Scratch programming environment. It describes how centralized mindset theory proposes that students often apply centralized control approaches when modeling distributed systems. The document outlines measures of centralization - closeness and betweenness centralization - that were calculated using social network analysis tools for 19 non-CS student Scratch projects. Projects with high closeness centralization showed centralized approaches, while betweenness centralization was not consistently indicative of centralized or decentralized approaches. The analysis provided new insights into student programming approaches in Scratch.

1. Measuring the Centralized Mindset in
Scratch
Nikolos Dimitris
Komis Vassilis
Department of Educational Science and
Early Childhood Education,
University of Patras,
Greece

2. Centralized Mindset
Theory developed by Mitchel Resnick
Students tend to apply centralized control
when they model distributed phenomena

3. Centralized mindset
Guzdial noticed a similar approach in object-
oriented programming with Smalltalk

4. Centralized Mindset and Social
Network Analysis
Centralized network De-centralized network

5. Centralization measures
• Closeness centralization: How close is a
node to all other nodes
• Betweenness centralization: How
important is a node in the paths between
other nodes
• (We used the Pajek Large Network
Analysis software)

6. Scratch to network

7. Scratch to network
Offline:
http://github.com/dimn
/
Online:
http://scratchgraph.hero

8. Measures of projects
19 projects from non-CS students

9. High centralization measures

10. High centralization measures
Closeness
centralization
: 1
Betweenness
centralization
:
0.5
Closeness is
indicative.

11. High centralization measures
• Betweenness centralization is low despite
the centralized nature of the projects

12. Low centralization measures

13. Low centralization measures

14. Low centralization measures

15. Conclusions
Projects that feature high closeness
centralization have a centralized nature. The
same was not true for betweenness
centralization.
Students submitted projects with both
centralized and decentralized control
The transformation of the structure of a
Scratch project to a network provides new
insights in programming with Scratch

16. References
Batagelj, V., Mrvar, A. (1998). Pajek – program for large network analysis.
Connections, 47–57.
Brennan, K. (2014). Constructionism in the Classroom: Three experiments in
Disrupting Technocentrism. In Proceedings of Constructionism 2014.
Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification.
Social Networks, 1(1979), 215–239.
Guzdial, M. (1995). Centralized mindset: A student problem with object-
oriented programming. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 27, 182–185.
Resnick, M. (1992). Turtles, termites and Traffic Jams: Explorations in Massively
Parallel Microworlds. MIT Press.
Resnick, M. (1996). Beyond the Centralized Mindset. Journal of the Learning
Sciences, 5, 1–22.
Scott, J. (2000). Social Network Analysis: A Hanbook. SAGE.
Images
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Auklet_flock_Shumagins_1986.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/db/NetworkTopo
logy-Ring.png/330px-NetworkTopology-Ring.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Darnir_redhat/Sandbox#/media/File:Netw
orkTopologies.png

17. Thank you!