Pub Date : 2021-10-08DOI: 10.26716/jcsi.2021.10.8.34
Robert Schwarzhaupt, Joseph P. Wilson, Fanny K. F. Lee, Melissa Raspberry
Prekindergarten to 12th-grade teachers of computer science (CS) face many challenges, including isolation, limited CS professional development resources, and low levels of CS teaching self-efficacy that could be mitigated through communities of practice (CoPs). This study used survey data from 420 PK–12 CS teacher members of a virtual CoP, CS for All Teachers, to examine the needs of these teachers and how CS teaching self-efficacy, community engagement, and sharing behaviors vary by teachers’ instructional experiences and school levels taught. Results show that CS teachers primarily join the CoP to gain high-quality pedagogical, assessment, and instructional resources. The study also found that teachers with more CS teaching experience have higher levels of self-efficacy and are more likely to share resources than teachers with less CS teaching experience. Moreover, teachers who instruct students at higher grade levels (middle and high school) have higher levels of CS teaching self-efficacy than do teachers who instruct lower grade levels (elementary school). These results suggest that CoPs can help CS teachers expand their professional networks, gain more professional development resources, and increase CS teaching self-efficacy by creating personalized experiences that consider teaching experience and grade levels taught when guiding teachers to relevant content. This study lays the foundation for future explorations of how CS education–focused CoPs could support the expansion of CS education in PK–12 schools.
学前至12年级的计算机科学教师面临着许多挑战，包括孤立、计算机科学专业发展资源有限，以及计算机科学教学自我效能水平低，这些都可以通过实践社区来缓解。本研究使用了来自虚拟CoP（CS for All Teachers）的420名PK–12 CS教师成员的调查数据，以检验这些教师的需求，以及CS教学自我效能、社区参与和共享行为如何因教师的教学经验和学校教学水平而变化。结果表明，CS教师加入CoP主要是为了获得高质量的教学、评估和教学资源。研究还发现，与CS教学经验较少的教师相比，CS教学经验较多的教师具有更高的自我效能水平，更有可能共享资源。此外，指导高年级（初中和高中）学生的教师比指导低年级（小学）的教师具有更高水平的CS教学自我效能感。这些结果表明，CoPs可以帮助CS教师扩展他们的专业网络，获得更多的专业发展资源，并通过创造个性化体验来提高CS教学的自我效能感，在引导教师学习相关内容时考虑教学经验和所教年级水平。本研究为未来探索以CS教育为重点的CoPs如何支持PK–12学校CS教育的扩展奠定了基础。
{"title":"Teachers’ Engagement and Self-Efficacy in a PK–12 Computer Science Teacher Virtual Community of Practice","authors":"Robert Schwarzhaupt, Joseph P. Wilson, Fanny K. F. Lee, Melissa Raspberry","doi":"10.26716/jcsi.2021.10.8.34","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.26716/jcsi.2021.10.8.34","url":null,"abstract":"Prekindergarten to 12th-grade teachers of computer science (CS) face many challenges, including isolation, limited CS professional development resources, and low levels of CS teaching self-efficacy that could be mitigated through communities of practice (CoPs). This study used survey data from 420 PK–12 CS teacher members of a virtual CoP, CS for All Teachers, to examine the needs of these teachers and how CS teaching self-efficacy, community engagement, and sharing behaviors vary by teachers’ instructional experiences and school levels taught. Results show that CS teachers primarily join the CoP to gain high-quality pedagogical, assessment, and instructional resources. The study also found that teachers with more CS teaching experience have higher levels of self-efficacy and are more likely to share resources than teachers with less CS teaching experience. Moreover, teachers who instruct students at higher grade levels (middle and high school) have higher levels of CS teaching self-efficacy than do teachers who instruct lower grade levels (elementary school). These results suggest that CoPs can help CS teachers expand their professional networks, gain more professional development resources, and increase CS teaching self-efficacy by creating personalized experiences that consider teaching experience and grade levels taught when guiding teachers to relevant content. This study lays the foundation for future explorations of how CS education–focused CoPs could support the expansion of CS education in PK–12 schools.","PeriodicalId":73688,"journal":{"name":"Journal of computer science integration","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46184513","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-08DOI: 10.26716/jcsi.2021.10.8.33
Julie Flapan, Jean J. Ryoo, Roxana Hadad, J. Knudson
Background and Context: Most large-scale statewide initiatives of the Computer Science for All (CS for All) movement have focused on the classroom level. Critical questions remain about building school and district leadership capacity to support teachers while implementing equitable computer science education that is scalable and sustainable. Objective: This statewide research-practice partnership, involving university researchers and school leaders from 14 local education agencies (LEA) from district and county offices, addresses the following research question: What do administrators identify as most helpful for understanding issues related to equitable computer science implementation when engaging with a guide and workshop we collaboratively developed to help leadership in such efforts? Method: Participant surveys, interviews, and workshop observations were analyzed to understand best practices for professional development supporting educational leaders. Findings: Administrators value computer science professional development resources that: (a) have a clear focus on “equity;” (b) engage with data and examples that deepen understandings of equity; (c) provide networking opportunities; (d) have explicit workshop purpose and activities; and (e) support deeper discussions of computer science implementation challenges through pairing a workshop and a guide. Implications: Utilizing Ishimaru and Galloway’s (2014) framework for equitable leadership practices, this study offers an actionable construct for equitable implementation of computer science including (a) how to build equity leadership and vision; (b) how to enact that vision; and (c) how to scale and sustain that vision. While this construct applies to equitable leadership practices more broadly across all disciplines, we found its application particularly useful when explicitly focused on equity leadership practices in computer science.
{"title":"Preparing School Leaders to Advance Equity in Computer Science Education","authors":"Julie Flapan, Jean J. Ryoo, Roxana Hadad, J. Knudson","doi":"10.26716/jcsi.2021.10.8.33","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.26716/jcsi.2021.10.8.33","url":null,"abstract":"Background and Context: Most large-scale statewide initiatives of the Computer Science for All (CS for All) movement have focused on the classroom level. Critical questions remain about building school and district leadership capacity to support teachers while implementing equitable computer science education that is scalable and sustainable. Objective: This statewide research-practice partnership, involving university researchers and school leaders from 14 local education agencies (LEA) from district and county offices, addresses the following research question: What do administrators identify as most helpful for understanding issues related to equitable computer science implementation when engaging with a guide and workshop we collaboratively developed to help leadership in such efforts? Method: Participant surveys, interviews, and workshop observations were analyzed to understand best practices for professional development supporting educational leaders. Findings: Administrators value computer science professional development resources that: (a) have a clear focus on “equity;” (b) engage with data and examples that deepen understandings of equity; (c) provide networking opportunities; (d) have explicit workshop purpose and activities; and (e) support deeper discussions of computer science implementation challenges through pairing a workshop and a guide. Implications: Utilizing Ishimaru and Galloway’s (2014) framework for equitable leadership practices, this study offers an actionable construct for equitable implementation of computer science including (a) how to build equity leadership and vision; (b) how to enact that vision; and (c) how to scale and sustain that vision. While this construct applies to equitable leadership practices more broadly across all disciplines, we found its application particularly useful when explicitly focused on equity leadership practices in computer science.","PeriodicalId":73688,"journal":{"name":"Journal of computer science integration","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47164524","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-01DOI: 10.26716/jcsi.2020.03.2.1
Tia C Madkins, Nicol R Howard, Natalie Freed
In this position paper, we advocate for the use of equity-focused teaching and learning as an essential practice within computer science classrooms. We provide an overview of the theoretical underpinnings of various equity pedagogies (Banks & Banks, 1995), such as culturally relevant pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 1995, 2006) and share how they have been utilized in CS classrooms. First, we provide a brief history of CS education and issues of equity within public schools in the United States. In sharing our definition of equity, along with our rationale for how and why these strategies can be taken up in computer science (CS) learning environments, we demonstrate how researchers and educators can shift the focus from access and achievement to social justice. After explaining the differences between the relevant theoretical frameworks, we provide practical examples from research of how both practitioners and researchers might use and/or examine equity-focused teaching practices. Resources for further learning are also included.
{"title":"Engaging Equity Pedagogies in Computer Science Learning Environments.","authors":"Tia C Madkins, Nicol R Howard, Natalie Freed","doi":"10.26716/jcsi.2020.03.2.1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.26716/jcsi.2020.03.2.1","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In this position paper, we advocate for the use of equity-focused teaching and learning as an essential practice within computer science classrooms. We provide an overview of the theoretical underpinnings of various <i>equity pedagogies</i> (Banks & Banks, 1995), such as <i>culturally relevant pedagogy</i> (Ladson-Billings, 1995, 2006) and share how they have been utilized in CS classrooms. First, we provide a brief history of CS education and issues of equity within public schools in the United States. In sharing our definition of equity, along with our rationale for how and why these strategies can be taken up in computer science (CS) learning environments, we demonstrate how researchers and educators can shift the focus from access and achievement to social justice. After explaining the differences between the relevant theoretical frameworks, we provide practical examples from research of how both practitioners and researchers might use and/or examine equity-focused teaching practices. Resources for further learning are also included.</p>","PeriodicalId":73688,"journal":{"name":"Journal of computer science integration","volume":"3 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10401482/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9955871","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-02-21DOI: 10.26716/JCSI.2019.02.1.2
Douglas D. Havard, K. Howard
This article compares the two most prominent courses of Advanced Placement (AP) computer science study offered throughout 9-12 grades in the U.S. The structure, guidelines, components, and exam formats of the traditional AP Computer Science A course and the relatively newer AP Computer Science Principles course were compared to examine differences in content and emphases. A depth-of-learning analysis was conducted employing Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy to examine potential differences in rigor and challenge represented by the two options, particularly as it relates to acquiring computer programming proficiency. Analyses suggest structural differences in both course content and end-of-course exam components likely result in less depth and rigor in the new Computer Science Principles course as compared to the Computer Science A course. A lower minimum standard for learning programming skills in the Computer Science Principles course was observed, making it a less viable option for students looking to acquire skills transferable to future computer science study or employment. The potential implications for students choosing the new course over the traditional offering, as well as for schools opting for the new course as its sole or primary offering are discussed.
{"title":"All Advanced Placement (AP) Computer Science is Not Created Equal: A Comparison of AP Computer Science A and Computer Science Principles","authors":"Douglas D. Havard, K. Howard","doi":"10.26716/JCSI.2019.02.1.2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.26716/JCSI.2019.02.1.2","url":null,"abstract":"This article compares the two most prominent courses of Advanced Placement (AP) computer science study offered throughout 9-12 grades in the U.S. The structure, guidelines, components, and exam formats of the traditional AP Computer Science A course and the relatively newer AP Computer Science Principles course were compared to examine differences in content and emphases. A depth-of-learning analysis was conducted employing Bloom’s Revised Taxonomy to examine potential differences in rigor and challenge represented by the two options, particularly as it relates to acquiring computer programming proficiency. Analyses suggest structural differences in both course content and end-of-course exam components likely result in less depth and rigor in the new Computer Science Principles course as compared to the Computer Science A course. A lower minimum standard for learning programming skills in the Computer Science Principles course was observed, making it a less viable option for students looking to acquire skills transferable to future computer science study or employment. The potential implications for students choosing the new course over the traditional offering, as well as for schools opting for the new course as its sole or primary offering are discussed.","PeriodicalId":73688,"journal":{"name":"Journal of computer science integration","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46143136","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-02-15DOI: 10.26716/JCSI.2019.02.1.1
K. Howard, Douglas D. Havard
The purpose of this research is to examine the relationship between students’ participation in the two high school AP computer science exam options and their selected fields of study once they enter post-secondary education. Two studies using national public-use datasets of participation and performance were conducted. Study 1 compared score distributions for the traditional Computer Science A exam to those of the newer Computer Science Principles exam during its first two years of implementation. In Study 1, Chi-square analyses indicated large differences in performance between the two exams, with the Computer Science Principles scores clustering more around marginal pass rates. Descriptive data indicate that African American, Latino, and female students participated in larger proportions on the new exam, whereas traditionally overrepresented groups are continuing to opt more for the traditional Computer Science A course. In Study 2, logistic regression analyses were conducted on the 2016 second follow-up data collection of the High School Longitudinal Study 2009 (HSLS:09). Those analyses revealed that 11th Grade enrollment in computer science courses that concentrate on computer programming significantly predicted selection of a STEM major as the first declared major after high school. Although students who enrolled in Computer Science A were five times as likely to declare a STEM major, a comparison of the curricula and assessments for the two courses suggests that the Computer Science Principles exam places far less emphasis on programming. The potential implications of the differential foci and emphases of the two courses are discussed.
{"title":"Advanced Placement (AP) Computer Science Principles: Searching for Equity in a Two-Tiered Solution to Underrepresentation","authors":"K. Howard, Douglas D. Havard","doi":"10.26716/JCSI.2019.02.1.1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.26716/JCSI.2019.02.1.1","url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this research is to examine the relationship between students’ participation in the two high school AP computer science exam options and their selected fields of study once they enter post-secondary education. Two studies using national public-use datasets of participation and performance were conducted. Study 1 compared score distributions for the traditional Computer Science A exam to those of the newer Computer Science Principles exam during its first two years of implementation. In Study 1, Chi-square analyses indicated large differences in performance between the two exams, with the Computer Science Principles scores clustering more around marginal pass rates. Descriptive data indicate that African American, Latino, and female students participated in larger proportions on the new exam, whereas traditionally overrepresented groups are continuing to opt more for the traditional Computer Science A course. In Study 2, logistic regression analyses were conducted on the 2016 second follow-up data collection of the High School Longitudinal Study 2009 (HSLS:09). Those analyses revealed that 11th Grade enrollment in computer science courses that concentrate on computer programming significantly predicted selection of a STEM major as the first declared major after high school. Although students who enrolled in Computer Science A were five times as likely to declare a STEM major, a comparison of the curricula and assessments for the two courses suggests that the Computer Science Principles exam places far less emphasis on programming. The potential implications of the differential foci and emphases of the two courses are discussed.","PeriodicalId":73688,"journal":{"name":"Journal of computer science integration","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44845349","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-08-24DOI: 10.26716/JCSI.2018.01.1.1
S. Jacob, M. Warschauer
Today’s students will enter a workforce that is powerfully shaped by computing. To be successful in a changing economy, students must learn to think algorithmically and computationally, to solve problems with varying levels of abstraction. These computational thinking skills have become so integrated into social function as to represent fundamental literacies. However, computer science has not been widely taught in K-12 schools. Efforts to create computer science standards and frameworks have yet to make their way into mandated course requirements. Despite a plethora of research on digital literacies, research on the role of computational thinking in the literature is sparse. This conceptual paper proposes a three dimensional framework for exploring the relationship between computational thinking and literacy through: 1) situating computational thinking in the literature as a literacy; 2) outlining mechanisms by which students’ existing literacy skills can be leveraged to foster computational thinking; and 3) elaborating ways in which computational thinking skills facilitate literacy development.
{"title":"Computational Thinking and Literacy","authors":"S. Jacob, M. Warschauer","doi":"10.26716/JCSI.2018.01.1.1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.26716/JCSI.2018.01.1.1","url":null,"abstract":"Today’s students will enter a workforce that is powerfully shaped by computing. To be successful in a changing economy, students must learn to think algorithmically and computationally, to solve problems with varying levels of abstraction. These computational thinking skills have become so integrated into social function as to represent fundamental literacies. However, computer science has not been widely taught in K-12 schools. Efforts to create computer science standards and frameworks have yet to make their way into mandated course requirements. Despite a plethora of research on digital literacies, research on the role of computational thinking in the literature is sparse. This conceptual paper proposes a three dimensional framework for exploring the relationship between computational thinking and literacy through: 1) situating computational thinking in the literature as a literacy; 2) outlining mechanisms by which students’ existing literacy skills can be leveraged to foster computational thinking; and 3) elaborating ways in which computational thinking skills facilitate literacy development.","PeriodicalId":73688,"journal":{"name":"Journal of computer science integration","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48091012","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-08-24DOI: 10.26716/JCSI.2018.01.1.2
K. Anderson, L. Burge, Troy J. Shine, M. Mejias, Ketly Jean-Pierre
In this article, we use evidence to describe seven key lessons from a four-year district-wide computer science implementation project between Howard University and the District of Columbia Public Schools. These lessons are: (a) Get to know the school counselors (and other key personnel); (b) Expect personnel changes and strategic reorganization within school districts; (c) Be innovative to build and maintain community; (d) Be flexible when developing instruments and curricula; (e) Maintain a firm commitment to equity; (f) Develop tiered content and prepare to make philosophical adjustments; and (g) Identify markers of sustainability. We also include original curricula materials including the Computer Science Course Evaluation and the Computational Thinking Survey. The seven lessons and curricula materials provided in this study can be used to inform the development of future computer science researcher-practitioner partnerships.
{"title":"Lessons Learned from a District-Wide Implementation of a Computer Science Initiative in the the District of Columbia Public Schools","authors":"K. Anderson, L. Burge, Troy J. Shine, M. Mejias, Ketly Jean-Pierre","doi":"10.26716/JCSI.2018.01.1.2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.26716/JCSI.2018.01.1.2","url":null,"abstract":"In this article, we use evidence to describe seven key lessons from a four-year district-wide computer science implementation project between Howard University and the District of Columbia Public Schools. These lessons are: (a) Get to know the school counselors (and other key personnel); (b) Expect personnel changes and strategic reorganization within school districts; (c) Be innovative to build and maintain community; (d) Be flexible when developing instruments and curricula; (e) Maintain a firm commitment to equity; (f) Develop tiered content and prepare to make philosophical adjustments; and (g) Identify markers of sustainability. We also include original curricula materials including the Computer Science Course Evaluation and the Computational Thinking Survey. The seven lessons and curricula materials provided in this study can be used to inform the development of future computer science researcher-practitioner partnerships.","PeriodicalId":73688,"journal":{"name":"Journal of computer science integration","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44644420","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：