Computational thinking and teachers:

A study of a professional development model

Abstract

In this study, we explore the effectiveness of a professional development model that aims to build
teacher capacities in computer science and computational thinking for k-12 schools. Specifically,
the study is guided by these questions: 1). Does the PD improve teachers’ understanding of
computational thinking aligned with Common Core State Standards (CCSS) & Next Generation
Science Standards (NGSS) in STEM areas?2). What are lessons learned when implementing this
professional development model?

A mixed methods research approach was adopted. Participants were 25 practicing teachers in k-12
classrooms. The results show that the PD enhanced teachers' understanding of CT. In addition, the
full paper discusses the affordance of the model and challenges identified during the
implementation process.

Introduction

Computer science (CS) and computational thinking (CT) have gained growing attention from various groups,
including the White House in recent years, acknowledging that it has become a new “basic skill” that every K-12
student needs to master. However basic, development of curricula and adequate preparation of teachers for CS/CT
skills are works in progress (Grover & Pea, 2013). Indeed, whereas there is a nationwide push on teaching computer
science for all students, only one-quarter of K-12 schools in United States have high-quality computer science
instruction (Smith, 2016).

One significant challenge is the lack of time for standalone computer science courses in K-12 schools. Integrating
CT and CS in existing STEM curricula within K-12 classrooms therefore has great potential to address this gap.
However, well trained teachers with the needed skills who can effectively integrate CS and CT in STEM areas are
scarce, and face personal and systemic obstacles (Bower et al. 2017, p. 56; Israel, et al. 2014). In this study, we
explore the effectiveness of a professional development model that aims to build teacher capacities for K-12 schools.
Specifically, the study is guided by these questions:

1). Does the PD improve teachers’ understanding of computational thinking aligned with Common Core
State Standards (CCSS) & Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) in STEM areas?

2). What are lessons learned when implementing this professional development model?

Methods

A mixed methods research approach was adopted. Participants were 25 practicing teachers in k-12 classrooms.
Amongst these teachers, 11 were teaching at elementary levels, 6 in middle schools and 8 in high schools.

The PD Model

The professional development program model employed a blended learning approach, mixing online and face-to-
face meetings. The online learning environment consisted of four learning modules and resources focusing on
important computational thinking concepts such as modeling. The online component also offered opportunities for
teachers to interact with each other and specialists in various areas, including experts in CT, math and science
educators, and technical supporters. The project started with a 2-hour face-to-face orientation meeting when all the
participants met and were introduced to the online learning environment. Over the next 3 months, participating
teachers worked through the first three learning modules asynchronously. The online modules included videos, text
information, games, and hands-on activities to help familiarize teachers with the content. Various quizzes were also
incorporated in the modules to provide teachers immediate feedback about their content understanding. After the
teachers completed these first 3 modules, a full week, face-to-face summer institute (a total of 20 hours) was
conducted. During this summer institute, teachers collaboratively completed the fourth module and developed
various lesson plans aimed to integrating CT into their own teaching practices. After the summer institute, teachers
are expected to implement their lessons into their teaching practice. At the end of the project, they will also share
their implementation results with colleagues and school administrators at a colloquium.

Literature Review

Computational Thinking and Computer Science in Schools

We live in an era where technology is everywhere. The proliferation of technology calls for enhanced computer
science (CS) education from early grades. CS and computational thinking (CT) are now being recognized as a
fundamental skill for all students who want to become competent citizens in the 21st century. On January 2016,
President Obama stated: “We have to make sure all our kids are equipped for the jobs of the future – which means
not just being able to work with computers, but developing the analytical and coding skills to power our innovation
economy. In the new economy, computer science isn’t an optional skill – it’s a basic skill, right along with the three
‘Rs” (The White House, 2016, p. 2). What followed is the 2016 Computer Science for All initiative- a “bold new
initiative to empower all American students from kindergarten through high school to learn computer science and be
equipped with the computational thinking skills they need to be creators in the digital economy, not just consumers,
and to be active citizens in our technology-driven world” (Smith, 2016, p. 2). This initiative alone calls for more
than $4 billion in funding to support various activities ranging from training of teachers, to the development of high
quality instructional materials. A significant challenge for CT education is the lack of time for standalone CT
courses (Williams, 2017). Integrating CT into existing curriculum in PreK-12 classrooms therefore has a great
potential to address this challenge (Williams, 2017; Yadav, Stephenson, & Hong, 2017). Scholars (Barr &
Stephenson, 2011; Wing, 2014) have also argued for early introduction of CT into curriculum. This new practice
calls for qualified teachers with expertise in the PreK-12 classrooms to ensure CT learning experiences for every
student. Yet, well-trained teachers with the needed skills who can effectively integrate CT are scarce(Williams,
2017). This project, therefore, aims to address this significant issue by designing, implementing and evaluating a
content-rich, technology enhanced, sustained professional development (PD) program for PreK-12 teachers to gain
content and pedagogical knowledge to effectively integrate CT into their curriculum.

Effective Professional Development

The project PD model included several critical components of effective professional development. In designing the
PD, it is important to ensure the content of the PD is relevant and immediately applicable to participating teachers.
Research suggests that teachers are more likely to implement and sustain changes in practice when PD is specific
and aligned with their curricular content (Stigler & Hiebert, 2009). Another critical feature of effective PD is that it
is systemic and ongoing. Darling-Hammond, Wei, Andree, Richardson, and Orphanos (2009) found that 90% of
U.S. teachers who participated in “one-shot” PD showed little change in their pedagogical practice or student
learning. They found that teachers need close to 50 hours of professional development in order to improve practice
and impact student learning. Coaching has also been found to be an effective strategy for supporting teacher change
(Lowenhaupt, McKinney, & Reeves, 2013). Veenman and Denessen (2001) found that coaching as part of PD
helped to strengthen teachers’ ability to self-reflect as well as improved the quality of their instructional planning
and practice.

Portions of the PD were selected to be delivered online. This was done to allow teachers adequate time to engage
with the content as their levels of CT and CS proficiencies varied. Research has shown no significant differences
between online and face-to-face PD, suggesting it is an effective model for providing the new information (Masters,
de Kramer, O’Dwyer, Dash, & Russell, 2012). It is important to note, however, that the coaches maintained regular
contact with the participating teachers as they completed the online portions and a few face-to-face support sessions
were also offered for any teachers who needed additional support.

Data and analysis

This study was part of a large research project focused on the examination of the effectiveness of PD designed to
help teachers gain content and pedagogical knowledge of CT. The initial data collection included surveys, quizzes,
pretests and posttests of CT knowledge and pedagogy, teacher written assignments, researchers’ reflective journals
and teachers’ feedback through information interviews. Teachers’ written assignments included modified lesson/unit
plans, reflections, and online interactions posted throughout the course and were analyzed using thematic analysis by
the PIs. This paper focuses on the impact as well as the efficacy of the described PD model in improving teachers’
content knowledge of CT primarily through analysis of the results of the pre- and post- tests related to CT, written
assignments, and researchers’ reflective journals.

To answer the research question 1, both descriptive and referential analyses were conducted. Specifically, paired t-
test were administered to investigate possible effects of the PD on teachers’ understanding of CT. To answer the
research question 2, thematic analysis was conducted to identify lessons learned from the implementation process.

Results

CT Learning

To answer the research question 1, pre- and post-tests of teachers’ knowledge of computational thinking skills were
compared.

Twenty-eight participants completed the pretest and 17 (61% of pretest sample) completed the posttest. Descriptive
statistics for each assessment are shown in Table 1. Mean performance increased by over a standard deviation from
pre-test to post-test, and the increase in the median score was of similar magnitude. The pretest mean for the 17
participants who completed both assessments was 57.2 (SD = 14.7), which is similar to the mean from all 28
original participants (M = 58.6, SD = 14.1). The posttest mean was 76.5 (SD = 13.3). A paired t-test was conducted
to compare the pretest and posttest means for the 17 participants with data at both time points. The mean difference
was 19.3 (SD = 16.2). The confidence interval for this difference score did not include zero (95% CI: 11.0 – 27.6),
and the difference score was significantly different from zero, t(16) = 4.91; p < 0.001. A 19.3 raw unit difference is
1.31 times the SD of the pretest (Glass’ Δ = 1.31), suggesting a large effect size for the increase. That is, the
professional development enhanced teachers’ understanding of computational thinking as reflected in their
achievement test gains. This finding is supported by Bower et al. (2017) who demonstrated that teachers improved
their confidence and attitudes toward teaching CT, as well as awareness of technology and resources, following a
brief workshop PD. In this case, teacher knowledge improved after a more extensive PD experience.

Lessons learned

The second research question focused on the lessons learned from the implementation of the PD. Thematic analysis
of the data including teachers’ feedback from the surveys and researchers’ notes was conducted to answer this
research question. Several important lessons were identified through this analysis. First, the blended learning
approach afforded teachers flexibility to learn anytime and anywhere. On the one hand, the online modules offered
much-needed flexibility. Practicing teachers are very busy, especially during the school year, and the online
learning modules allowed participants in the study to learn at convenient times and places. In addition, the online
learning environment enabled teachers to access global resources. For example, two of our CT experts participated
from different physical locations, one outside the US. Yet interaction with experts both local and remote was easy
and accessible. As well, the online learning experience allowed self-pacing for both slow and quick learners, making
learning less stressful and more enjoyable. The embedded assessment tools such as quizzes not only provided
immediate feedback so that teachers could better monitor their learning, but also enabled easy tracking of teachers’
learning progress. On the other hand, the face-to-face elements provided teachers opportunities to establish
collaborative relationships. The first face-to-face orientation meeting allowed teachers to bond quickly and also
provided an opportunity for the teachers to acclimate to the format of the modules. The integrated optional technical
support sessions afforded chances to get just-in-time help for those teachers who were not confident in their skills
and needed additional assistance. The face-to-face summer institute facilitated more collaboration amongst teachers.
It also empowered teachers to engage in deep learning that involved more hands-on, minds on activities.

In addition, a few challenges were identified. One significant challenge was how to develop learning materials that
could meet the needs of diverse teachers. While it was the intention to include teachers of grades K-12, so that
different teacher groups could learn from each other, we found that it was challenging to create opportunities that
could simultaneously foster both elementary and secondary teachers' learning experiences. This is reflected in two
perspectives: first, secondary teachers tended to have stronger STEM backgrounds, including CS, than elementary
(especially PreK-2nd grade) teachers. Second, secondary/middle school teachers were more likely to find connecting
CT to their curriculum easier than their elementary colleagues. In particular, it was difficult for preK-2nd grade
teachers to consider how CT could be integrated into their classrooms.

Balancing the face-to-face and online meeting times presented another challenge. A vast majority of the
participating teachers enjoyed the online, asynchronous learning approach, especially during the regular school year
because it offered them the needed flexibility to work on the materials at the time and place they preferred. Some
teachers even stated that “I would not be able to participate if [the modules] were not online.” However, a few
teachers were frustrated because they needed more intensive technical support. They suggested including a few face-
to-face sessions, especially at the beginning of the project, to support the steep learning curve of programming. Our
participants’ thoughts are consistent with findings from the case study by Israel et al. (2014) in which teachers
observed that lack of computing expertise was a significant barrier and that ongoing support was a significant aid to
teachers’ integration of CT into the classroom.

Further details and discussions, including the description of instruments, are included in the full paper.

Table 1. Pretest and Posttest Descriptive Statistics

Time

Pretest Posttest

Total correct Mean 58.6 76.5

Standard Deviation 14.1 13.3

Count 28 17

95% Lower CL for Mean 53.1 69.7

95% Upper CL for Mean 64.0 83.3

Median 58.0 75.0

 Mode 58 67a

Maximum 83 100

Minimum 33 50

Range 50 50

a. Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown

Significance

The importance of CT has been increasingly recognized and the call for teaching CT to ALL students demands

teachers’ understanding of both the content and pedagogical knowledge related to CT integration. The current paper

proposes a PD model that can address the challenge of CT integration discussed earlier. The results show positive

outcomes of the PD model in helping teachers learn a set of CT skills. The affordances and issues identified also

provides useful information to improve the PD model and offer effective strategies to help teachers gain knowledge

related to CT integration.
 References

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.
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. doi: 10.14221/ajte.2017v42n3.4
Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the
learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the U.S. and abroad. Alexandria, VA:
ASCD.
Grover, S, & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K-12: Review of the state of the field. Educational
Researcher 42(1), 38-43. doi: 10.3102/0013189X12463051
Israel, M., Pearson, J., Tapia, T., Wherfel, Q., & Reese, G. (2014). Supporting all learners in school-wide
computational thinking: A cross-case qualitative analysis. Computers & Education 82, 263-279. doi:
10.1016/j.compedu.2014.11.022
Lowenhaupt, R., McKinney, S., & Reeves, T. (2013). Coaching in context: The role of relationships in the work of
three literacy coaches. Professional Development in Education, 5, 740–757.
doi:10.1080/19415257.2013.847475
Masters, J., de Kramer, R. M., O’Dwyer, L. M., Dash, S., & Russell, M. (2012). The effects of online teacher
professional development on fourth grade students’ knowledge and practices in English language arts.
Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 20(1), 21-46.
Smith, M. (2016). Computer Science For All. Retrieved from
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/01/30/computer-science-all
Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (2009). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world’s teachers for improving education
in the classroom. New York, NY: Free Press.
Veenman, S., & Denessen, E. (2001). The coaching of teachers: Results of five training studies. Educational
Research and Evaluation, 7(4), 385–417. doi: 10.1076/ edre.7.4.385.8936
Williams, H. (2017). No Fear Coding: Computational Thinking across the k-5 Curriculum. Arlington, VA:
International Society for Technology in Education.
Wing, J. M. (2014). Computational thinking benefits society. Retrieved from
http://socialissues.cs.toronto.edu/index.html%3Fp=279.html
Yadav, A., Stephenson, C., & Hong, H. (2017). Computational thinking for teacher education. Communications of
the ACM, 60(4), 55-62.