An Investigation of In-service Teachers’ Perceptions and Development of Computational Thinking Skills in a Graduate Emerging Technologies Course
Keywords:
computational thinking, creative computing, online learning, perceptions, teacher educationAbstract
This study investigated in-service teachers’ perceptions and development of computational thinking (CT) skills in an online graduate emerging technologies course. Participants perceived that they increased their CT problem-solving and creativity skills and decreased their collaborative learning and critical thinking skills. Additionally, teachers increased their CT test scores after taking the course. Most teachers used CT terminology correctly (i.e., algorithms and decomposition). However, only 59% correctly described abstraction and pattern recognition, while most teachers did not mention debugging. The authors call on teacher educators to address in-service teachers’ knowledge gaps in their CT skills and select appropriate strategies for CT preparation.
Downloads
References
Agalianos, A., Noss, R., & Whitty, G. (2001). Logo in mainstream schools: The struggle over the soul of an educational innovation. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 22(4), 479–500. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425690120094449 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01425690120094449
Ames, M. G. (2018). Hackers, computers, and cooperation: A critical history of Logo and constructionist learning. In Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 2(18), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1145/3274287
Bull, G., Garofalo, J., & Hguyen, N. R. (2020). Thinking about computational thinking: Origins of computational thinking in educational computing. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 36(1), 6–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2019.1694381
Barcelos, T. S., Muñoz-Soto, R., Villarroel, R., Merino, E., & Silveira, I. F. (2018). Mathematics Learning through Computational Thinking Activities: A Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 24(7), 815–845.
Barr, V., & Stephenson, C. (2011). Bringing computational thinking to K-12: What is involved and what is the role of the computer science education community?. ACM Inroads, 2(1), 48–54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/1929887.1929905
BBC Bitesize. (n.d.). Introduction to computational thinking. https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zp92mp3/revision/1
Blikstein, P. (2018). Pre-college computer science education: A survey of the field [Report]. Google LLC. https://goo.gl/gmS1Vm
Bower, M., Wood, L. N., Lai, J. W., Highfield, K., Veal, J., Howe, C., Lister, R., & Mason, R. (2017). Improving the computational thinking pedagogical capabilities of school teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 42(3), 53–72. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2017v42n3.4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2017v42n3.4
Campe, S., Denner, J., Green, E., & Torres, D. (2020). Pair programming in middle school: variations in interactions and behaviors. Computer Science Education, 30(1), 22–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2019.1648119
Cansu, S. K., & Cansu, F. K. (2019). An overview of computational thinking. International Journal of Computer Science Education in Schools, 3(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.21585/ijcses.v3i1.53
Code.org, CSTA, & ECEP Alliance. (2021). 2021 State of computer science education: Accelerating action through advocacy. https://advocacy.code.org/stateofcs
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104
Creative Computing Lab. (n.d.). Creative computing curriculum. Harvard Graduate School of Education. https://creativecomputing.gse.harvard.edu/guide/
CSTA (2017). K-12 Computer science standards. Retrieved from https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-dPTAI1yk2HYPKUWZ6DqaM6aVUDa9iby/view
Garvin, M., Killen, H., Plane, J., & Weintrop, D. (2019, February). Primary school teachers' conceptions of computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM technical symposium on computer science education (pp. 899–905).
Goode, J. (2008, March). Increasing diversity in K-12 computer science: Strategies from the field. In Proceedings of the 39th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education (pp. 362–366). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/1352135.1352259
Gretter, S., Yadav, A., Sands, P., & Hambrusch, S. (2019). Equitable learning environments in K-12 computing: Teachers’ views on barriers to diversity. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 19(3), 1–16.
Gray, L. E. (1983). TECC/8: A Teacher Education and Computing Center. Teacher Education Quarterly, 10(4). 8–21.
Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12. A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12463051 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12463051
Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2018). Computational thinking: A competency whose time has come. In S. Sentance, E. Barendsen, & C. Schulte (Eds.) Computer science education: Perspectives on teaching and learning in school (pp. 19–38). Bloomsbury. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350057142.ch-003
Grover, S., Pea, R., & Cooper, S. (2015). Designing for deeper learning in a blended computer science course for middle school students. Computer Science Education, 25(2), 199–237. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2015.1033142
Guven, G., & Kozcu Cakir, N. (2020). Investigation of the opinions of teachers who received in-service training for Arduino-assisted robotic coding applications. Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 15(1), 253–274.
Hanks, B., Fitzgerald, S., McCauley, R., Murphy, L., & Zander, C. (2011). Pair programming in education: A literature review. Computer Science Education, 21(2), 135–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2011.579808 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2011.579808
Hello Ruby. (2019, September 2). Episode 02: computational thinking [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3vwRQCfTHc
Hickmott, D., Prieto-Rodriguez, E., & Holmes, K. (2018). A scoping review of studies on computational thinking in K–12 mathematics classrooms. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 4(1), 48–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40751-017-0038-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40751-017-0038-8
Hinton, P. R., Brownlow, C., McMurray, I., & Cozens, B. (2004). SPSS Explained. Routledge Inc. East Sussex, England. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203642597
Hooshyar, D., Pedaste, M., Yang, Y., Malva, L., Hwang, G. J., Wang, M., Lim, H., & Delev, D. (2021). From gaming to computational thinking: An adaptive educational computer game-based learning approach. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(3), 383–409.
Huang, W., & Looi, C. K. (2021). A critical review of literature on “unplugged” pedagogies in K-12 computer science and computational thinking education. Computer Science Education, 31(1), 83–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2020.1789411
Israel, M., Pearson, J. N., Tapia, T., Wherfel, Q. M., & Reese, G. (2015). Supporting all learners in school-wide computational thinking: A cross-case qualitative analysis. Computers & Education, 82, 263–279. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.11.022
ISTE (2016a). ISTE standards for educators. https://www.iste.org/standards/for-educators
ISTE (2016b). ISTE standards for students. https://www.iste.org/standards/iste-standards-for-students
Jaipal-Jamani, K., & Angeli, C. (2017). Effect of robotics on elementary preservice teachers’ self-efficacy, science learning, and computational thinking. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(2), 175–192. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9663-z
K-12 Computer Science Framework. (2016). https://k12cs.org
Kennedy, C., Kraemer, E. T., & Benson, L. C. (2021). Active learning techniques for computing education. In C. Mouza, A. Yadav, & A. Ottenbreit-Leftwich (Eds.) Preparing pre-service teachers to teach computer science: Models, practices, and policies (pp. 3–28). Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Ketelhut, D. J., Mills, K., Hestness, E., Cabrera, L., Plane, J., & McGinnis, J. R. (2020). Teacher change following a professional development experience in integrating computational thinking into elementary science. Journal of science education and technology, 29(1), 174–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09798-4
Kotsopoulos, D., Floyd, L., Khan, S., Namukasa, I. K., Somanath, S., Weber, J., & Yiu, C. (2017). A pedagogical framework for computational thinking. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 3(2), 154–171. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40751-017-0031-2
Logo Foundation. (2014). Logo history. https://el.media.mit.edu/logo-foundation/what_is_logo/history.html
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.
Meerbaum-Salant, O., Armoni, M., & Ben-Ari, M. (2013). Learning computer science concepts with Scratch. Computer Science Education, 23(3), 239–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2013.832022 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2013.832022
Microsoft Makecode. (2022) Microsoft Makecode for micro:bit (Version 4.0.18) [Computer software]. Microsoft. https://makecode.microbit.org/
Miles, M. B., Humberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2019). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (4th ed.). Sage Publishing.
Mills, K., Coenraad, M., Ruiz, P., Burke, Q., & Weisgrau, J. (2021, December). Computational thinking for an inclusive world: A resource for educators to learn and lead. Digital Promise. https://doi.org/20.500.12265/138
Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers college record, 108(6), 1017–1054. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
Montiel, H., & Gomez-Zermeño, M. G. (2021). Educational challenges for computational thinking in K–12 education: A systematic literature review of “Scratch” as an innovative programming tool. Computers, 10(6), 69. https://doi.org/10.3390/computers10060069
Moon, J., Do, J., Lee, D., & Choi, G. W. (2020). A conceptual framework for teaching computational thinking in personalized OERs. Smart Learning Environments, 7(1), 1–19.
NGSS Lead States (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
Orton, K., Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Jona, K., & Wilensky, U. (2016). Bringing computational thinking into high school mathematics and science classrooms. In C. K. Looi, J. L. Polman, U. Cress & P. Reimann (Eds.), Transforming Learning, Empowering Learners: The International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2016 (pp. 705–712). Singapore: International Society of the Learning Sciences.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic Books, Inc.
Pea, R. D., & Kurland, D. M. (1984). On the cognitive effects of learning computer programming. New Ideas in Psychology, 2(2), 137–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/0732-118X(84)90018-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0732-118X(84)90018-7
Psycharis, S. (2018). STEAM in education: A literature review on the role of computational thinking, engineering epistemology and computational science. computational steam pedagogy (CSP). Scientific Culture, 4(2), 51–72.
Ranganathan, P., Pramesh, C. S., & Aggarwal, R. (2017). Common pitfalls in statistical analysis: Measures of agreement. Perspectives in Clinical Research, 8(4), 187–191. https://doi.org/10.4103/picr.PICR_123_17 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/picr.PICR_123_17
Resnick, M., & Ocko, S. (1990). LEGO/logo--learning through and about design. Cambridge: Epistemology and Learning Group, MIT Media Laboratory.
Sands, P., Yadav, A., & Good, J. (2018). Computational thinking in K-12: In-service teacher perceptions of computational thinking. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Computational thinking in the STEM disciplines (pp. 151–164). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93566-9_8
Schmidt-Crawford, D. A., Lindstrom, D. & Thompson, A. D. (2018). Coding for teacher education: A recurring theme that requires our attention. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 34(4), 198–200. https:doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2018.1499992
Scratch. (n.d.). Scratch (Version 3.0) [Computer software]. Scratch Foundation. https://scratch.mit.edu/
Solomon, C. (1988). Computer environments for children: A reflection on theories of learning and education. MIT press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/2038.001.0001
Sun, L., Hu, L., & Zhou, D. (2021). Which way of design programming activities is more effective to promote K‐12 students' computational thinking skills? A meta‐analysis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(4), 1048–1062. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12545
Uston, K. (1983, October). 9,250 Apples for the teacher. Creative Computing, 9(10), 178–183. https://www.atarimagazines.com/creative/v9n10/178_9250_Apples_for_the_teac.php
Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Good, J., Mishra, P., & Yadav, A. (2015). Computational thinking in compulsory education: towards an agenda for research and practice. Education and Information Technologies, 20(4), 715–728. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9412-6
Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Orton, K., Jona, K., Trouille, L., & Wilensky, U. (2016). Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of science education and technology, 25(1), 127–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9581-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9581-5
Weintrop, D. (2021). The role of block-based programming in computer science education. In Understanding computing education (Vol 1). Proceedings of the Raspberry Pi Foundation Research Seminar series. https://rpf.io/seminar-proceedings-2020
Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215
Wing, J. M. (2010). Computational thinking: What and why? [Unpublished manuscript]. Computer Science Department, Carnegie Mellon University. https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~CompThink/resources/TheLinkWing.pdf
Wilkerson, M. H., & Fenwick, M. (2017). Using mathematics and computational thinking. In C. V. Schwarz, C. Passmore, & B. J. Reiser (Eds.), Helping students make sense of the world using next generation science and engineering practices (pp. 181–204). Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers’ Association Press.
Wisniewski, M. G., Church, B. A., Mercado, E., Radell, M. L., & Zakrzewski, A. C. (2019). Easy-to-hard effects in perceptual learning depend upon the degree to which initial trials are “easy.” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26(6), 1889–1895. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-019-01627-4
Yadav, A., Gretter, S., Good, J., & McLean, T. (2017). Computational thinking in teacher education. In P. Rich & C. B. Hodges (Eds.), Emerging research, practice, and policy on computational thinking (pp. 205–220). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52691-1_13 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52691-1_13
Yadav, A., Good, J., Voogt, J., & Fisser, P. (2017). Computational thinking as an emerging competence domain. In M. Mulder (Ed.), Competence-based vocational and professional education (pp. 1051–1067). Cham: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41713-4_49
Yadav, A., Stephenson, C., & Hong, H. (2017). Computational thinking for teacher education. Communications of the ACM, 60(4), 55–62. https://doi.org/10.1145/2994591 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2994591
Yadav, A., Zhou, N., Mayfield, C., Hambrusch, S., & Korb, J. T. (2011, March). Introducing computational thinking in education courses. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM technical symposium on Computer science education (pp. 465–470). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/1953163.1953297
Yağcı, M. (2019). A valid and reliable tool for examining computational thinking skills. Education and Information Technologies, 24(1), 929–951.
Yaşar, O., Maliekal, J., Veronesi, P., Little, L., & Vattana, S. (2015, March). Computational pedagogical content knowledge (CPACK): integrating modeling and simulation technology into STEM teacher education. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 3514–3521). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
Yin, R. K. (2017). Case study research and application: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage Publishing.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Copyright (c) 2023 Yi Jin, Jason Harron
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
