skip to main content
10.1145/3502718.3524771acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesiticseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

Developing K-8 Computer Science Teachers' Content Knowledge, Self-efficacy, and Attitudes through Evidence-based Professional Development

Authors Info & Claims
Published:07 July 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

Broadening participation in computer science (CS) for primary/elementary students is a growing movement, spurred by computing workforce demands and the need for younger students to develop skills in problem solving and critical/computational thinking. However, offering computer science instruction at this level is directly related to the availability of teachers prepared to teach the subject. Unfortunately, there are relatively few primary/elementary school teachers who have received formal training in computer science, and they often self-report a lack of CS subject matter expertise. Teacher development is a key factor to address these issues, and this paper describes professional development strategies and empirical impacts of a summer institute that included two graduate courses and a series of Saturday workshops during the subsequent academic year. Key elements included teaching a high-level programing language (Python and JavaScript), integrating CS content and pedagogy instruction, and involving both experienced K-12 CS teachers and University faculty as instructors. Empirical results showed that this carefully structured PD that incorporated evidence-based elements of sufficient duration, teacher active learning and collaboration, modeling, practice, and feedback can successfully impact teacher outcomes. Results showed significant gains in teacher CS knowledge (both pedagogy and content), self-efficacy, and perception of CS value. Moderating results -- examining possible differential effects depending on teacher gender, years of teaching CS, and geographic locale -- showed that the PD was successful with experienced and less experienced teachers, with teachers from both rural and urban locales, and with both males and females.

References

  1. Harry P Bahrick. 1984. Semantic memory content in permastore: fifty years of memory for Spanish learned in school. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 113, 1 (1984), 1.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Albert Bandura. 1977. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review 84, 2 (1977), 191. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033--295X.84.2.191Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Albert Bandura. 1997. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W H Freeman, New York, NY.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Paulo Blikstein and Sepi Hejazi Moghadam. 2018. Pre-college computer science education: A survey of the field. (2018). https://services.google.com/fh/files/misc/pre-college-computer-science-education-report.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Code.org, CSTA, and ECEP Alliance. 2020. 2020 state of computer science education: Illuminating disparities. https://advocacy.code.org/2020_state_of_cs.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Quintin Cutts, Judy Robertson, Peter Donaldson, and Laurie O'Donnell. 2017. An evaluation of a professional learning network for computer science teachers. Computer Science Education 27, 1 (2017), 30--53. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2017.1315958Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Linda Darling-Hammond, Ruth Chung Wei, Alethea Andree, Nikole Richardson, and Stelios Orphanos. 2009. Professional learning in the learning profession. Washington, DC: National Staff Development Council 12 (2009). http://www.learningforward.org/docs/pdf/nsdcstudy2009.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Brian Dorn and Allison Elliott Tew. 2015. Empirical validation and application of the computing attitudes survey. Computer Science Education 25, 1 (2015), 1--36. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2015.1014142Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Michael S Garet, Andrew C Porter, Laura Desimone, Beatrice F Birman, and Kwang Suk Yoon. 2001. What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal 38, 4 (2001), 915--945. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312038004915Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Google and Gallup. 2016. Computer Science Learning: Closing the Gap: Girls. https://services.google.com/fh/files/misc/computer-science-learning-closing-the-gap-girls-brief.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Google and Gallup. 2017. Computer Science Learning: Closing the Gap: Rural and Small-Town Districts. https://goo.gl/hYxqCrGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Shuchi Grover, Roy Pea, and Stephen Cooper. 2015. Designing for deeper learning in a blended computer science course for middle school students. Computer science education 25, 2 (2015), 199--237. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2015.1033142Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Halil Ibrahim Haseski and Ilic Ulas. 2019. An investigation of the data collection instruments developed to measure computational thinking. Informatics in Education 18, 2 (2019), 297--319. https://doi.org/10.15388/infedu.2019.14Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Emily Hestness, Diane Jass Ketelhut, J Randy McGinnis, and Jandelyn Plane. 2018. Professional knowledge building within an elementary teacher pro-fessional development experience on computational thinking in science ed-ucation. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 26, 3 (2018), 411--435. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/181431/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. White House. 2016. FACT SHEET/ A Year of Action Supporting CS for All. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/12/05/fact-sheet-year-action-supporting-computer-science-allGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Erdogan Kaya, Ezgi Yesilyurt, Anna Newley, and Hasan Deniz. 2019. Examining the impact of a computational thinking intervention on pre-service elementary science teachers' computational thinking teaching efficacy beliefs, interest and confidence. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching 38, 4 (2019), 385--392.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Jiyoung Kim, Joshua Childs, Anne Leftwich, Kendra Montejos Edwards, Carol L Fletcher, and Katie Hendrickson. 2021. Landscape of Computer Science Teacher Qualification Pathway. In Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 1299--1299. https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3408877.3439635Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Siu-Cheung Kong, Ming Lai, and Daner Sun. 2020. Teacher development in computational thinking: Design and learning outcomes of programming concepts, practices and pedagogy. Computers & Education 151 (2020), 103872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103872Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Sonia Koshy, Alexis Martin, Laura Hinton, Allison Scott, Bryan Twarek, and Kalisha Davis. 2021. The computer science teacher landscape: Results of a nationwide teacher survey. Retrieved (May 23, 2021) from https://csteachers. org/page/cs-teacher-landscape (2021). https://www.kaporcenter.org/the-computer-science-teacher-landscape-results-of-a-nationwide-teacher-surveyGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Susan Loucks-Horsley, Katherine E Stiles, Susan Mundry, Nancy Love, and Peter W Hewson. 2009. Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics. Corwin press, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Allison Master, Sapna Cheryan, and Andrew N Meltzoff. 2016. Computing whether she belongs: Stereotypes undermine girls' interest and sense of belonging in computer science. Journal of educational psychology 108, 3 (2016), 424. https://psycnet.apa.org/manuscript/2015--37516-001.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Lowell Matthews Jr and Pat Yongpradit. 2019. Addressing America's Growing Demand for Information Technology and Computer Science: The Case for Change in K-12 Education. Foundation for Excellence in Education (2019). https://www.excelined.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/ExcelinEdCode.AddressingAmericasGrowingDemandforITandCS.TheCaseforChangeinK12Ed.June2019.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Microsoft. 2018. It's Computer Science Education Week, and we're here to help you make it great! https://blogs.microsoft.com/latinx/2018/12/05/its-computer-science-education-week-and-were-here-to-help-you-make-it-great/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Lee Dee Miller, Leen-Kiat Soh, and Markeya S Peteranetz. 2019. Investigating the Impact of Group Size on Non-Programming Exercises in CS Education Courses. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. Minneapolis,MN,USA, 22--28. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287324.3287400Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. NCCWIT. 2019. Bridging the Encouragement Gap in Computing. https://ncwit.org/resource/practicingencouragement/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Lijun Ni, Gillian Bausch, and Rebecca Benjamin. 2021. Computer science teacher professional development and professional learning communities: a review of the research literature. Computer Science Education (2021), 1--32. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2021.1993666LGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Lijun Ni, Mark Guzdial, Allison Elliott Tew, Briana Morrison, and Ria Galanos. 2011. Building a community to support HS CS teachers: the disciplinary commons for computing educators. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM technical symposium on Computer science education. 553--558. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2021. 1993666Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. V Darleen Opfer and David Pedder. 2011. Conceptualizing teacher professional learning. Review of Educational Research 81, 3 (2011), 376--407. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311413609Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Markeya S Peteranetz and Anthony D Albano. 2020. Development and evaluation of the Nebraska Assessment of Computing Knowledge. Frontiers in Computer Science 2 (2020), 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomp.2020.00011Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. Markeya S Peteranetz, Abraham E Flanigan, Duane F Shell, and Leen-Kiat Soh. 2018. Helping engineering students learn in introductory computer science (CS1) using computational creativity exercises (CCEs). IEEE Transactions on Education 61, 3 (2018), 195--203.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Markeya S Peteranetz, Patrick M Morrow, and Leen-Kiat Soh. 2020. Develop-ment and validation of the computational thinking concepts and skills test. In Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. Portland,OR,USA, 926--932. https://doi.org/10.1145/3328778.3366813Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Robert C Pianta. 2005. A new elementary school for American children. SRCD Social Policy Report 19 (2005), 4--5.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Paul R Pintrich, David AF Smith, Teresa Garcia, and Wilbert J McKeachie. 1993. Reliability and predictive validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Ques-tionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement 53, 3 (1993), 801--813. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164493053003024Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Stephen W Raudenbush and Anthony S Bryk. 2002. Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Vol. 2. sage, London,England.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Kathryn Rich, Carla Strickland, and Diana Franklin. 2017. A literature review through the lens of computer science learning goals theorized and explored in research. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. Seattle, WA, 495--500. https://doi.org/10.1145/3017680.3017772Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Peter J Rich, Stacie L Mason, and Jared O'Leary. 2021. Measuring the effect of continuous professional development on elementary teachers' self-efficacy to teach coding and computational thinking. Computers & Education 168 (2021), 104--196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104196Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Jean Ryoo, Joanna Goode, and Jane Margolis. 2015. It takes a village: Supporting inquiry-and equity-oriented computer science pedagogy through a professional learning community. Computer Science Education 25, 4 (2015), 351--370. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2015.1130952Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Robert Schwarzhaupt, Joseph Wilson, Fanny Lee, and Melissa Raspberry. 2021. Teachers' engagement and self-efficacy in a PK--12 computer science teacher virtual community of practice. Journal of Computer Science Integration (2021). https://doi.org/10.26716/jcsi.2021.10.8.34Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. U.N. Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization. 2017. Cracking the code: Girls' and women's education in science, technology, engineering and mathe-matics (STEM). https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000253479Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Rectangular confidence regions for the means of multivariate normal distributions. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 62, 318 (1967), 626--633. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1967.10482935Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Jim Stanton, Lynn Goldsmith, Richards W Adrion, Sarah Dunton, Katie A Hen-drickson, Alan Peterfreund, Pat Yongpradit, Rebecca Zarch, and Jennifer D Zinth. 2017. Landscape Report: State-Level Policies Supporting Equitable K-12 Com-puter Science Education. https://www.edc.org/sites/default/files/uploads/State-States-Landscape-Report.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Jennifer Wang, Hai Hong, Jason Ravitz, and Sepehr Hejazi Moghadam. 2016. Landscape of K-12 computer science education in the US: Perceptions, access, and barriers. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education. Memphis, TN, USA, 645--650. https://doi.org/10.1145/2839509.2844628Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Ruth Chung Wei, Linda Darling-Hammond, and Frank Adamson. 2010. Professional development in the United States: Trends and challenges. (2010). https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/professional-development-united-states-trends-and challenges.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Aman Yadav, Sarah Gretter, Jon Good, and Tamika McLean. 2017. Computational thinking in teacher education. In Emerging research, practice, and policy on computational thinking. Springer, 205--220.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Developing K-8 Computer Science Teachers' Content Knowledge, Self-efficacy, and Attitudes through Evidence-based Professional Development

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      ITiCSE '22: Proceedings of the 27th ACM Conference on on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education Vol. 1
      July 2022
      686 pages
      ISBN:9781450392013
      DOI:10.1145/3502718

      Copyright © 2022 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 7 July 2022

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate552of1,613submissions,34%

      Upcoming Conference

      ITiCSE 2024
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)127
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)22

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader