Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Teacher Change Following a Professional Development Experience in Integrating Computational Thinking into Elementary Science

  • Published:
Journal of Science Education and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Computer science and computer science education are marked by gender and racial disparities. To increase the number and diversity of students engaging in computer science, young children need opportunities to develop interest and foundational understandings, including computational thinking (CT). Accordingly, elementary teachers need to understand CT, and how to integrate it into their practice. We investigate how to best support elementary teachers in learning to integrate CT into their science teaching through a CT professional development experience for elementary teachers. The professional development consisted of two parts: a professional development workshop and a science teacher inquiry group. In this study, we sought to understand if and how teachers’ views on integrating CT into their teaching practice changed following their participation in a yearlong professional development experience on CT. Based on our analysis, we offer suggestions for future research and implications for the design of professional development for integrating CT into science education.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We note that between the end of the workshops and the beginning of the inquiry group, several mentor teachers changed schools or positions, and were no longer serving as mentors to preservice teachers in their classrooms. However, these individuals elected to continue participating in the professional development experience.

References

  • Adler, R. F., & Kim, H. (2018). Enhancing future K-8 teachers’ computational thinking skills through modeling and simulations. Education and Information Technologies, 23(4), 1501–1514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aho, A. V. (2012). Computation and computational thinking. The Computer Journal, 55(7), 832–835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angwin, J., Larson, J., Mattu, S., & Kirchner, L. (2016). Machine Bias. ProPublica. Retrieved August 12, 2018, from https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing.

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bocconi, S., Chioccariello, A., Dettori, G., Ferrari, A., & Engelhardt, K. (2016). Developing computational thinking for compulsory education: implications for policy and practice. Seville: European Commission, Joint Research Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bower, M., Wood, L. N., Lai, J. W., Howe, C., Lister, R., Mason, R., & Veal, J. (2017). Improving the computational thinking pedagogical capabilities of school teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 42(3), 4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, A., & Gamboa, R. (2017). Teacher transformations in developing computational thinking: gaming and robotics use in after-school settings. In P. J. RIch & C. B. Hodges (Eds.), Emerging research, practice, and policy on computational thinking (pp. 189–203). Cham: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, D. J. (1997). Chapter 7: Studying the classroom negotiation of meaning: complementary accounts methodology. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. Monograph, 9, 98–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(8), 947–967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2017). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 5th eds. London: Sage Publications.

  • Cuny, J., Snyder, L., & Wing, J. M. (2010). Demystifying computational thinking for non-computer scientists. Unpublished manuscript in progress, referenced in http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~CompThink/resources/TheLinkWing.pdf. Accessed 10 July 2018.

  • D’Alba, A., & Huett, K. C. (2017). Learning computational skills in uCode@UWG: challenges and recommendations. In P. J. RIch & C. B. Hodges (Eds.), Emerging research, practice, and policy on computational thinking (pp. 3–20). Cham: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Palo Alto: Learning Policy Institute.

  • Gallup Inc. & Google Inc. (2016). Diversity gaps in computer science: exploring the underrepresentation of girls, Blacks and Hispanics. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/PG34aH.

  • Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: a review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guskey, T. R. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change. Educational Researcher, 15(5), 5–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hestness, E., Ketelhut, D.J., McGinnis, J.R., & Plane, J. (2018). Professional knowledge building within an elementary teacher professional development experience on computational thinking in science education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 26(3), 411–435.

  • International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE), (2016). 2016 ISTE standards for students. Retrieved from: http://www.iste.org/docs/Standards-Resources/iste-standards_students-2016_one-sheet_final.pdf. Acessed 14 July 2018.

  • Israel, M., Pearson, J., 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jayathirtha, G., & Kafai, Y. B. (2019). Electronic textiles in computer science education: a synthesis of efforts to broaden participation, increase interest, and deepen learning. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 713–719). New York, NY, USA: ACM.

  • Justi, R., & Van Driel, J. (2005). The development of science teachers’ knowledge on models and modelling: promoting, characterizing, and understanding the process. International Journal of Science Education, 27(5), 549–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kafyulilo, A., Fisser, P., & Voogt, J. (2015). Supporting teachers learning through the collaborative design of technology-enhanced science lessons. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26(8), 673–694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-015-9444-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNeill, K. L., Katsh-Singer, R., González-Howard, M., & Loper, S. (2016). Factors impacting teachers’ argumentation instruction in their science classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 38(12), 2026–2046.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

  • National Research Council. (2010). Report of a workshop on the scope and nature of computational thinking. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12840.

  • NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards : for states, by states. Washington D.C.: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orton, K., Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Jona, K. & Wilensky, U. (2016). Bringing computational thinking into high school mathematics and science classrooms. Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2016. Singapore.

  • Rambally, G. (2017). Integrating computational thinking in discrete structures. In P. J. RIch & C. B. Hodges (Eds.), Emerging research, practice, and policy on computational thinking (pp. 99–120). Cham: Springer.

  • Sadik, O., Leftwich, A.-O., & Nadiruzzaman, H. (2017). Computational thinking conceptions and misconceptions: progression of preservice teacher thinking during computer science lesson planning. In P. J. Rich & C. B. Hodges (Eds.), Emerging research, practice, and policy on computational thinking (pp. 221–238). Cham: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, B. (1996). A case study of change in elementary student teacher thinking during an independent investigation in science: learning about the “face of science that does not yet know”. Science Education, 80(5), 535–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tai, R., Liu, C., Maltese, A., & Fan, X. (2006). CAREER CHOICE: enhanced: planning early for careers in science. Science, 312(5777), 1143–1144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tatar, D., Harrison, S., Stewart, M., Frisina, C., & Musaeus, P. (2017). Proto-computational thinking: the uncomfortable underpinnings. In P. J. RIch & C. B. Hodges (Eds.), Emerging research, practice, and policy on computational thinking (pp. 63–81). Cham: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wing, J. M. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 366(1881), 3717–3725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, F. H., & Thompson, S. R. (1980). Guidelines for better staff development. Educational Leadership, 37, 374–378.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yadav, A., Zhou, N., Mayfield, C., Hambrusch, S., & Korb, J. T. (2011). Introducing computational thinking in education courses. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM technical symposium on Computer science education (pp. 465-470). New York, NY, USA: ACM.

  • Yadav, A., Mayfield, C., Zhou, N., Hambrusch, S., & Korb, J. T. (2014). Computational thinking in elementary and secondary teacher education. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 14(1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yadav, A., Hong, H., & Stephenson, C. (2016). Computational thinking for all: pedagogical approaches to embedding 21st century problem solving in K-12 classrooms. TechTrends, 60(6), 565–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yadav, A., Gretter, S., Good, J., & McLean, T. (2017a). Computational thinking in teacher education. In P. J. Rich & C. B. Hodges (Eds.), Emerging research, practice, and policy on computational thinking (pp. 205–220). Cham: Springer.

  • Yadav, A., Good, J., Voogt, J., & Fisser, P. (2017b). Computational thinking as an emerging competence domain. In M. Mulder (Ed.), Competence-based vocational and professional education (pp. 1051–1067). Cham: Springer.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the project team, the Elementary Education Program Leader and PDS coordinators, and the National Science Foundation.

Funding

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1639891.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Maryland at College Park, College Park, MD, USA

    Diane Jass Ketelhut, Kelly Mills, Emily Hestness, Lautaro Cabrera, Jandelyn Plane & J. Randy McGinnis

Authors
  1. Diane Jass Ketelhut
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kelly Mills
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Emily Hestness
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lautaro Cabrera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jandelyn Plane
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. J. Randy McGinnis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Diane Jass Ketelhut.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ketelhut, D.J., Mills, K., Hestness, E. et al. Teacher Change Following a Professional Development Experience in Integrating Computational Thinking into Elementary Science. J Sci Educ Technol 29, 174–188 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09798-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09798-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation