Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Developing a computer science education program: an innovation study
(USC Thesis Other)
Developing a computer science education program: an innovation study
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 1
Developing a Computer Science Education Program: An Innovation Study
by
Raja Ridgway
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2019
Copyright 2019 Raja Ridgway
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 2
Dedication
To the educators willing to go beyond the traditional confines of schooling to truly
prepare their students with the knowledge and skills necessary for the 21
st
century. May the
desire to continue learning in service of providing a more equitable education and future for all
students be infectious and appreciated.
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 3
Acknowledgements
Learning does not happen in isolation, and I have been incredibly lucky to have worked
with and been supported by a number of incredibly talented and generous individuals and teams.
Without their undying love and commitment, I would not have been able to reach the finish line.
I owe a great deal of appreciation to my work colleagues, for their unwavering
encouragement. They were consistently willing to listen to my thoughts and comments,
providing me with feedback and a space to process. I hope to repay their support and
commitment many times over.
To my committee members: Dr. Frederick Freking, Dr. Alison Muraszewski, and Dr.
Anthony Maddox. Your support and feedback throughout this process has driven me to think
about computer science in new and innovative ways. I am a better student, researcher, and
thinker because of our time together.
To my USC colleagues, I appreciate you all. Your dedication to your work continues to
inspire me and drive me forward. Our conversations and partnerships have made my research
better, and I hope that we continue to work together.
Finally, to my wife Jessica, who has supported me without hesitation from the day I
submitted my application. You have scarified time and energy over the past several years, and I
cannot express how much this has meant to me. Thank you.
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 4
Table of Contents
Dedication ................................................................................................................................. 2
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................... 3
Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................... 4
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................ 8
Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... 9
Introduction to Problem of Practice .......................................................................................... 10
Organizational Context and Mission ........................................................................................ 10
Importance of Addressing the Problem .................................................................................... 11
Purpose of the Project and Questions ....................................................................................... 12
Organizational Performance Status ............................................................................................ 12
Organizational Performance Goals ........................................................................................... 13
Stakeholder Group of Focus and Stakeholder Goal .................................................................. 13
Review of Literature ................................................................................................................. 14
Historical Overview ............................................................................................................ 14
Computer Science Teachers ................................................................................................ 16
Computer Science Teacher Education ................................................................................ 17
Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences .......................................................... 19
Knowledge Influences ........................................................................................................ 20
Computer science content knowledge .......................................................................... 21
Computer science pedagogical content knowledge ...................................................... 22
Motivation Influences ......................................................................................................... 23
Individual self-efficacy ................................................................................................. 24
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 5
Collective self-efficacy ................................................................................................. 25
Interest ........................................................................................................................... 26
Organizational Influences ................................................................................................... 27
Cultural models ............................................................................................................. 28
Cultural settings ............................................................................................................ 28
Interactive Conceptual Framework ............................................................................................ 31
Figure 1. Interaction of Knowledge and Motivation Needs with Organizational Settings and
Models ................................................................................................................................. 32
Data Collection ......................................................................................................................... 33
Interviews ............................................................................................................................ 34
Interview protocol ......................................................................................................... 34
Interview procedures ..................................................................................................... 35
Documents and Artifacts ..................................................................................................... 36
Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 37
Findings ..................................................................................................................................... 38
A Need for Content and Pedagogical Content Knowledge ................................................. 38
Computer science content knowledge .......................................................................... 38
Computer science pedagogical content knowledge ...................................................... 40
Motivations for Teaching Computer Science ..................................................................... 42
Individual self-efficacy ................................................................................................. 43
Collective self-efficacy ................................................................................................. 45
Interest in computer science generally .......................................................................... 47
Interest in teaching computer science ........................................................................... 49
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 6
Organizational Needs and Concerns ................................................................................... 53
Alignment with school culture ...................................................................................... 53
Computer science teacher role models ......................................................................... 56
Solutions and Recommendations .............................................................................................. 58
Knowledge Recommendations ........................................................................................... 58
Developing computer science-specific content knowledge .......................................... 59
Developing computer science-specific pedagogical content knowledge ...................... 60
Motivation Recommendations ............................................................................................ 61
Increasing collective self-efficacy ................................................................................ 63
Shifting from emerging to well-developed interest in computer science ..................... 64
Organization Recommendations ......................................................................................... 65
Aligning school culture with teachers’ desires to teach computer science ................... 66
Learning from an experienced computer science teacher ............................................. 67
Limitations and Delimitations ................................................................................................... 68
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 69
Appendix A: Participating Stakeholders with Sampling Criteria for Interviews ..................... 71
Appendix B: Protocols .............................................................................................................. 73
Appendix C: Credibility and Trustworthiness .......................................................................... 75
Appendix D: Ethics ................................................................................................................... 77
Appendix E: Integrating Implementation and Evaluation Plan ................................................ 79
Appendix G: Immediate Evaluation Instrument ....................................................................... 93
Appendix H: Blended Evaluation Instrument ........................................................................... 94
Appendix I: Data Analysis Dashboard ..................................................................................... 95
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 7
References ................................................................................................................................. 96
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 8
List of Tables
Table 1. Summary of Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences ....................... 29
Table 2. Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations ...................................... 58
Table 3. Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendation ........................................ 62
Table 4. Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations ................................... 65
Table 5. Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes ...................... 81
Table 6. Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation ............................ 82
Table 7. Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors ......................................................... 83
Table 8. Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program ...................................... 88
Table 9. Components to Measure Reactions to the Program .................................................... 89
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 9
Abstract
The study utilizes the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework to assess the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs of novice and aspiring computer science
teachers. The purpose of this study was to better understand the needs of such teachers in an
effort to develop a computer science education program at a national institute of higher
education. A qualitative methods design was used, including nine interviews with novice and
aspiring computer science teachers seeking to participate in a professional development program
and the analysis of their content knowledge pre-test scores. Findings from the study illustrate the
need for a computer science education program that develops both content and pedagogical
content knowledge, increases self-efficacy and interest in computer science generally, provides
an experienced CS teacher as a role model, and aligns expectations with school leaders and
participants. Based on a literature review and the findings from this study, a series of
professional development trainings is proposed that support the development of prepared
computer science educators.
Keywords: computer science teacher education, teacher professional development, content
knowledge development, pedagogical content knowledge development, teacher self-efficacy,
teacher interest, teachers as role models.
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 10
Introduction to Problem of Practice
This paper addresses the need for computer science (CS) teachers in K-12 schools in the
United States. The United States Department of Education (2016) has recognized this need for
CS teachers by describing CS as an area of teacher shortage since 1990. This need for CS
teachers has resulted in fewer rigorous CS classes being offered across the country. Indeed, the
percentage of students taking Advanced Placement (AP) CS exams is significantly lower when
compared with other subjects (e.g., Calculus AB, English Literature and Composition) in the US
(CollegeBoard, 2018). Additionally, research has shown that students who do not take AP CS
classes during high school are less likely to pursue a computer science degree in college
(Mattern, Shaw, & Ewing, 2011). This problem is important to address as more individuals with
computer backgrounds are needed given the rapid increase in high-paying computer and
technology jobs and careers (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2018).
Organizational Context and Mission
Equity College (EC) is a non-profit accredited institution of higher education that works
in 18 cities across the United States of America. EC (pseudonym) was founded in 2011 and
provides a variety of programs for teachers and school leaders, including a two-year master’s
degree program for teachers and a one-year fellowship program for school principals and
principal supervisors. During school year 2017-2018, approximately 3,400 teachers and school
leaders participated in EC programs across the country. The mission statement of EC is to
develop teachers and school leaders to support pre-kindergarten through 12
th
grade (PK-12)
students in acquiring both academic and character knowledge and skills.
The specific department to be focused on within EC is the CS education department.
Unlike most other departments at EC, the CS education department only offers professional
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 11
development (PD) due to the lack of clear certification pathways for most states (Adrion, Fall,
Ericson, & Guzdial, 2016). The department was established in 2016 to offer a one-week pilot
PD program focused on introductory CS concepts for twenty current and aspiring secondary CS
teachers in New York City, New York. Two one-day PD workshops were also offered during
the fall of 2016 and spring of 2017, which focused on more advanced concepts. Based on
feedback from participants in the one-week pilot and single-day workshops, a seven-month pilot
PD program was run from December 2017 to June of 2018 for nine current and aspiring CS
teachers in New York City and Denver, Colorado. A revised version of the PD program was
launched in January of 2019 in a completely online environment with novice and aspiring CS
teachers from across the country. The CS education department at EC currently consists of one
part-time curriculum developer and instructor and one part-time director.
Importance of Addressing the Problem
With the Computer Science for All initiative, the United States has pledged to support CS
education across the country (Smith, 2016). The development of CS teachers could lead to an
increase in the number of students taking rigorous CS classes in high school, which has been
shown to be directly linked to majoring in CS in college (Mattern et al., 2011). Additionally,
appropriately trained CS teachers could expand access for many underrepresented student
groups, including female students and students of color (Goode, 2007; Master, Cheryan, &
Meltzoff, 2016; Robinson, Perez-Quiñones, & Scales, 2016). Failure, however, to develop such
teachers will result in the continued development of CS teachers who are not able to make
significant impacts on their students’ learning (Meneske, 2015).
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 12
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project is to understand the perceptions and experiences of novice
and aspiring CS teachers seeking to attend an EC CS education program. Understanding the
needs of these particular teachers will inform both the content and structures of a CS education
program at EC. The research questions to be answered by this project include:
1. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs of novice and aspiring
computer science teachers seeking to attend an Equity College computer science
education program?
2. What is the interaction between the Equity College organizational culture and the
knowledge and motivation of novice and aspiring computer science teachers seeking to
attend an Equity College computer science education program?
3. What are the recommended solutions to address the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational needs of novice and aspiring computer science teachers seeking to attend
an Equity College computer science education program?
Organizational Performance Status
To fulfill the mission of developing in PK-12 students the academic knowledge and skills
necessary to be successful in college and in life, EC needs to develop a CS education program
that results in an increase in the number of teachers prepared to teach a stand-alone CS class or
integrate CS into their current classes. While EC has provided professional development to CS
educators in the past, there is a need to develop a research-based program that clearly targets the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs of novice and aspiring CS teachers. The
development of such a program would allow the EC CS department to directly address the
specific needs of the target population.
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 13
Organizational Performance Goals
At EC, three organization goals created by the national leadership team provide the
framework for describing and measuring organizational performance. These goals include
shaping the future of both PK-12 and higher education, ensuring that graduate students have a
positive experience, and that participants at EC have positive impacts on their PK-12 students.
Additionally, each of the teams within EC, including campus teams and other departments such
as the centralized curriculum design team, set performance goals aligned to the organization
goals. Each employee at EC is also required to set four individual goals that are aligned to their
team goals. Teams and individuals review progress toward their goals during mid-year and end-
of-year evaluations. Goals are revised on a yearly basis.
The CS department at EC has one specific organizational performance goal. By January
2020, the CS department at EC will develop a completely online CS education PD program that
will enroll 40 novice and aspiring CS teachers. This goal was developed by the director of the
CS education department as part of a three-year plan for developing and implementing a CS
education program at EC. Achievement of this goal will be measured by reviewing enrollment
numbers at the start of the program in January 2020.
Stakeholder Group of Focus and Stakeholder Goal
The stakeholder group of focus includes novice and aspiring CS teachers seeking to
participate in an EC CS education program. The goal of this stakeholder group is to either teach
a CS class or integrate CS principles into their current subjects in the 2020-2021 school year.
They intend to accomplish this goal by summer of 2021.
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 14
Review of the Literature
Computer science is a term that has been evolving for several decades (Barr &
Stephenson, 2011). A number of individuals and groups have sought to provide definitions for
CS, especially given the confusion that often exists between CS, computer literacy, educational
technology, digital citizenship, and information technology (K-12 Computer Science
Framework, n.d.). For the purposes of this study, a definition provided by Tucker et al. (2003)
and subsequently used by a number of researchers and publications (e.g., Lang et al., 2013;
Wilson, Sudol, Stephenson, & Stehlik, 2010) will be utilized: “Computer science (CS) is the
study of computers and algorithmic processes, including their principles, their hardware and
software designs, their applications, and their impact on society.” This literature review will
begin with a brief overview of the history of CS education, specifically considering the issues of
access and equity to CS classes in PK-12 education. The review will then focus on CS teachers
themselves, including issues related to preparation, before concluding with a look at the current
state of CS teacher education. After the general literature review, the Clark and Estes (2008)
Gap Analysis Framework will be utilized to consider influences related to knowledge,
motivation, and organizational needs of novice and aspiring CS teachers.
Historical Overview
Access to CS education for PK-12 students has a history of being problematic in the
United States. Requirements for providing students with opportunities to take CS classes has
been dependent on individual states, with a large variation across the country (Ericson, Adrion,
Fall, & Guzdial, 2016; Lang et al., 2013; Wilson et al., 2010). Researchers have noted that
several states have either started to require or will soon require students to take CS (Lang et al.,
2013), with some states allowing CS classes to be taken for math, science, or elective graduation
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 15
credits (Wilson et al., 2010). In general, however, CS classes are rarely required for graduation
(Wilson et al., 2010), which has led school leaders to be reluctant to offer CS classes at their
campuses (Google, 2016). Indeed, in a 2016 study conducted by Google, principals noted that
one of the main reasons for not offering a computer science class at their schools was because it
was not a tested subject. However, progress is being made to change this lack of access.
In recent years, there has been movement toward increasing access to CS education.
Online education has provided additional reach for schools that do not have a CS teacher on staff
(Ericson et al., 2016) and individual states, such as Georgia, have prioritized providing CS
education (Guzdial, Ericson, McKlin, & Engelman, 2013). A variety of states have started to
collaborate in an effort to increase access to CS education, including 23 states coming together as
the Expanding Computing Education Pathways (ECEP) alliance (Guzdial, 2016). Additionally,
states such as Colorado have more recently begun to develop standards that may lead to an
increase in CS classes across the state (Colorado Department of Education, 2018). A national
framework has also been recently developed to support states with developing standards for
teaching CS (K-12 Computer Science Framework, n.d.). Unfortunately, such steps have not
always led to equitable outcomes for access to CS education.
Across the United States, disparities along income, race, and gender lines continue to
exist in both participation and success in CS courses. Ericson et al. (2016) described increasing
access as being skewed toward more wealthy schools, while Adrion et al. (2016) noted that the
majority of participants in CS classes are male and either white or Asian. Such inequities are
clearly seen in the participation rates on the CollegeBoard Advanced Placement (AP) CS
courses, where, in 2018, 71% of participants identified as white or Asian and 72% identified as
male (CollegeBoard, 2018). Moreover, of those passing the AP CS courses, 77% identified as
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 16
white or Asian and 73% identified as male (CollegeBoard, 2018). Studies have also found that
female students, and particularly African American female students, may have negative attitudes
toward CS classes (Robinson et al., 2016), and that stereotypes about who takes CS classes
prevent many female students from choosing to participate in CS classes (Master et al., 2016).
Such inequities are common within CS education, both in countries like the United States that
lack structures for equitable access and in countries such as Israel, where a formalized education
program for CS exists (Gal-Ezer & Stephenson, 2014). To address these disparities, more
prepared CS teachers are needed all throughout the country to increase the number of CS classes
available to all students.
Computer Science Teachers
There currently exists a need for CS teachers in the United States. This need for CS
educators has been an issue for a number of years, with the US Department of Education (2016)
identifying CS as an area of teacher shortage, in multiple states, since 1990. One reason for this
shortage is the current state of teacher certification for CS educators, which is virtually non-
existent in the United States (Adrion et al., 2016). Multiple states do offer teachers the option to
become certified or earn a CS-specific endorsement (Lang et al., 2013); however, such options
are often inconsistent and confusing (Wilson et al., 2010). As a result, teacher certification has
become a major barrier for increasing access to CS education, as teachers are not likely to pursue
training in CS education without the incentive of becoming a certified CS teacher (Adrion et al.,
2016). This shortage has also been recognized as a barrier for offering CS classes, with many
school leaders consistently citing hiring issues as a main reason for not having a CS program at
their school (Google, 2016). Certification issues have also led to a lack of prepared CS teachers,
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 17
with many current CS teachers being asked to teach CS classes without proper training (Gal-Ezer
& Stephenson, 2010).
Many current and aspiring computer science teachers need the CS-specific knowledge to
be prepared CS educators. Given that many CS teachers are often coming from other content
backgrounds (Goode, 2007), the time and energy required to learn new and challenging CS-
specific content knowledge is often cited as a major challenge for teaching CS (Yadav, Gretter,
Hambrusch, & Sands, 2016). Teachers of CS are often only a few steps ahead of their own
students as they attempt to build their own knowledge base while teaching (Goode, 2007).
Additionally, given that teachers need to learn both the content and the teaching methodologies
specific to CS (Yadav & Korb, 2012), such development takes time that many teachers do not
have (Ryoo, Goode, & Margolis, 2016). Becoming a prepared CS teacher also requires access to
a community of CS educators, which is often not available (Ryoo et al, 2016). Many CS
educators describe their experience as lonely as they are usually the only CS teacher at their
schools (Goode, 2007; Yadav et al., 2016). Being the only CS educator at a school often means
that teachers do not have opportunities to collaborate frequently and grow professionally (Goode,
2007). Fortunately, more and more steps are being taken to develop teachers’ knowledge and
provide them with a community of like-minded educators.
Computer Science Teacher Education
In the past few years, a number of recommendations have been made for developing
formalized CS teacher education programs. Such recommendations have focused on providing
educational experiences that develop both content knowledge and CS-specific teaching
methodologies (Yadav & Korb, 2012; Yadav, Stephenson, & Hong, 2017). Education programs
for CS teachers have also been recommended to take place online to bring together CS teachers
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 18
who are isolated at their individual schools (Benda, Bruckman, & Guzdial, 2012; Qian,
Hambrusch, Yadav, & Gretter, 2018; Yadav & Korb, 2012). Such programs would be
differentiated to support the variety of experiences and backgrounds of current and aspiring CS
teachers, including those who are veteran teachers switching subjects and those coming to
teaching from CS-related professions (Gal-Ezer & Stephenson, 2010; Qian et al., 2018).
Unfortunately, while such recommendations have been made, many teachers are still currently
attending professional development programs which only scratch at the surface of what they
need to be prepared CS educators.
Many programs currently aimed at developing CS teachers are falling short of what is
needed. Meneske (2015), in a review of 21 different CS education professional development
programs, noted that only one of the programs met the criteria for effective teacher professional
development. Designing effective professional development can be challenging, as teachers
currently teaching or seeking to teach CS are often coming from different backgrounds and
require individualized instruction to best meet their needs (Benda et al., 2012; Beth, Lin, &
Veletsianos, 2015). Given that many CS teachers are trying to learn CS while teaching full-time,
participants in professional development often do not complete the entirety of the program due to
time constraints (Benda et al., 2012). Some researchers have suggested the use of e-books as a
method for supporting CS teachers to allow for teachers to learn at their own pace, potentially in
short time increments (Ericson et al., 2015). Ultimately, however, more research must be done
to determine the best methods to develop current and aspiring CS teachers.
Many professional development opportunities for CS teachers are rushed to
implementation without significant research to determine if the programs are appropriate. In the
past, much of the research in CS education has been descriptive and not research-based due to
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 19
the relative youth of CS education (Armoni, 2011). This lack of research has led to a number of
programs being implemented to fill gaps for CS educators without prior testing (Franklin, 2015).
While some strides have been taken more recently to build the body on research on CS teacher
education (e.g., Qian et al., 2018; Ryoo et al., 2016), additional research, especially by institutes
of higher education that combine education and CS departments, is recommended to better
understand how to appropriately prepare CS teachers (Franklin, 2015).
EC is undertaking the development of a CS education program to increase the number of
secondary CS teachers across the United States. Research has demonstrated that CS education in
the United States has been historically problematic, with clear disparities existing along
economic, racial, and gender lines. Current and aspiring CS teachers face a number of barriers,
including a lack of content knowledge, insufficient pedagogical content knowledge, and
inconsistent certification pathways. While there have been calls for formalized CS education
programs, many CS teachers continue to attempt to educate themselves. Professional
development programs for CS teachers do exist; however, they are often not meeting the needs
of teachers due to insufficient research.
Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences
The Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis Framework is used to consider the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational gaps preventing an organization from reaching desired goals.
Knowledge gaps occur when individuals lack the specific knowledge or skills required to meet
their performance goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). Such knowledge gaps can appear in each of the
four types of knowledge, including factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive
knowledge (Krathwohl, 2002). Motivation gaps, as described by Clark and Estes (2008), occur
when individuals lack the desire to start a task, stay with the task, or work to complete the task.
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 20
Motivation can be influenced by numerous factors, including self-efficacy (Bandura, 2000;
Usher & Pajares, 2008) and interest (Renninger & Hidi, 2006; Schraw, Flowerday, & Lehman,
2001). Finally, organizational gaps can occur when individuals lack the appropriate resources,
systems, or structures to accomplish their performance goals (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Additionally, organizational gaps can be related to cultural issues within organizations
(Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Rueda, 2011).
The Clark and Estes (2008) framework will be used to consider the knowledge,
motivation, and organization gaps of novice and aspiring CS teachers, specifically as the gaps
relate to EC’s goal to develop a CS education program. First, the assumed knowledge influences
of CS teachers will be considered, including both the knowledge and skills needs of CS teachers
required to meet the organizational goal. Then, assumed motivational influences on CS teachers
will be discussed before assumed organizational influences are detailed with regards to the
organizational goal.
Knowledge Influences
In 2016, the United States government issued the CS for All initiative as an effort to
increase kindergarten through 12
th
grade (K-12) participation in CS (Smith, 2016). One
immediate issue with providing CS education continues to be a dearth of CS teachers, as many
educators do not currently have the content knowledge or the pedagogical content knowledge to
teach CS (e.g., Cutts, Robertson, Donaldson, & O’Donnell, 2017; Meneske, 2015; Yadav et al.,
2016). As a result, EC has begun the development of a CS education program designed to
develop novice and aspiring CS teachers. In considering both the design and implementation of
the program, it is essential to examine the knowledge and skills required to be a prepared CS
teacher. In particular, gaps in knowledge and skills of novice and aspiring CS teachers need to
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 21
be identified to determine how the EC program should be developed.
Clark and Estes (2008) note the importance of determining gaps in the knowledge and
skills of those being asked to perform a task. Specifically, it is crucial to know what types of
knowledge and skills are missing for an individual or group to provide the most appropriate
training (Clark & Estes, 2008). Knowledge can be categorized into four types: factual,
conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). Krathwohl (2002)
defines factual knowledge as the essential ideas necessary to understand a topic and conceptual
knowledge as the connections between those essential ideas to see the larger concept. Procedural
knowledge is practical and skill-based, while metacognitive knowledge is based on one’s
understanding of their own thinking (Krathwohl, 2002). Understanding the different types of
knowledge is a prerequisite for determining what kind of instruction and assessment is necessary
and appropriate (Rueda, 2011). Two knowledge influences will be considered for aspiring
secondary CS teachers. Each knowledge influence will be categorized into one of the four
knowledge types to determine the best type of assessment to measure the knowledge and skills of
the teachers in the EC program.
Computer science content knowledge. The first knowledge influence to be examined is
the CS-specific content knowledge that novice and aspiring CS teachers need to be prepared
educators. Such knowledge can be categorized as factual knowledge, as it is specific to a domain
and is necessary to understand the basic elements of the subject area (Rueda, 2011). Research
has demonstrated that a significant content knowledge gap exists for those who teach CS
(Goode, 2007; Meneske, 2015; Yadav et al., 2016). In a study conducted by Yadav et al. (2016),
over half of the teachers described challenges with their insufficient content knowledge, noting
that they were often learning alongside their students and unable to provide answers requiring
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 22
more than superficial understandings of the concepts. Goode (2007) describes similar findings in
a study about a specific CS education program in the Los Angeles Unified School District. In
particular, even teachers who worked to build their content knowledge while teaching struggled,
often developing lessons that were uninteresting to their students (Goode, 2007). As a result, this
content knowledge gap has been the focus of many CS professional development programs
(Meneske, 2015). Meneske (2015), in a literature review of 21 studies about professional
development for CS teachers, noted that many programs lasted only a week or less, which was
not sufficient for meeting teachers’ needs for developing content knowledge. Given the
significant gap in content knowledge, it is essential that the EC program focus on assessing and
developing the CS-specific content knowledge of the teachers participating in the program.
However, the knowledge and skill gaps are not limited to content knowledge, as significant gaps
also exist in the pedagogical content knowledge of novice and aspiring CS teachers.
Computer science pedagogical content knowledge. The second knowledge influence
to be examined is the CS-specific pedagogical content knowledge required to effectively teach
CS. Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK), as defined by Shulman (1986), is knowledge
“which goes beyond knowledge of subject matter per se to the dimension of subject matter
knowledge for teaching” (p. 9). PCK is procedural, as it includes the specific practices and skills
for a particular domain (Rueda, 2011). Similar to content knowledge, research has illustrated the
significant gaps that exist in CS teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (e.g., Bender et al.,
2015; Cutts et al., 2017; Meneske, 2015). Bender et al. (2015), in a study of 23 CS experts,
noted that teachers should have the CS-specific PCK to support a variety of learners while also
teaching abstract concepts that are usually difficult for students. Additionally, CS teachers
should also know how to approach teaching students from underrepresented populations (i.e.,
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 23
students of color and female students) using an equity-based curriculum (Goode, 2007).
However, most teachers have not been trained to educate their students using such methods, even
if they live in countries (e.g., Scotland) where teachers are required to have a background in CS
content (Cutts et al., 2017). The situation is worse in the United States, as many programs
designed to support CS teachers do not focus on PCK (Meneske, 2015). Meneske (2015) notes
that most instances of professional development did not prepare teachers to consider the needs of
a specific course or how to address potential student misconceptions. As a result, a significant
gap exists in the knowledge and skills required for CS teachers to effectively educate K-12
students. A summary of the assessments to be used to measure the content knowledge and PCK
of aspiring secondary CS teachers is included in Table 1. Table 1 also includes EC’s mission
and the organizational goal for the CS education department.
Motivation Influences
In the United States, the process of becoming a CS teacher can be confusing and
frustrating (Gal-Ezer & Stephenson, 2010). As Gal-Ezer and Stephenson (2010) noted,
certification pathways for those seeking to become CS teachers are often challenging to
understand and, in some cases, are disconnected from the realities of teaching K-12 students.
Additionally, professional development often does not meet the needs of CS teachers (Meneske,
2015), adding to the frustration. As a result, those seeking to become a CS teacher in the United
States require motivation to overcome the numerous barriers put in their way. Motivation, as
defined by Clark and Estes (2008), includes starting a task, continuing to work on the task, and
inputting enough cognitive energy to finish the task. For novice and aspiring CS teachers, they
must decide to both develop their knowledge of CS and then teach CS during the next school
year. Novice and aspiring CS teachers must also demonstrate persistence by completing the
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 24
necessary coursework to build their knowledge of CS content and pedagogy while potentially
continuing to teach another subject. Finally, they must invest enough mental energy, based on
their previous experiences with CS content and pedagogy, to be effective teachers. In this
section, motivation-related influences related to aspiring secondary CS teachers will be
reviewed. Specifically, self-efficacy theory (Usher & Pajares, 2008) and interest (Renninger &
Hidi, 2006; Schraw et al., 2001) will be used to consider the motivation needs of aspiring
secondary CS teachers.
Individual self-efficacy. The first motivational influence to be considered is self-
efficacy theory, which focuses on how individuals perceive themselves (Bandura, 2000). Usher
and Parjares (2008) define the beliefs that accompany self-efficacy as the attitudes that specific
individuals have about what they are capable of accomplishing. These beliefs are based on prior
experiences and interactions with others and can have a drastic impact on whether an individual
chooses to pursue and persist through a challenging task (Usher & Pajares, 2008). As Usher and
Pajares (2008) note, individuals with higher levels of self-efficacy will tend to persevere through
difficult tasks, while those with lower levels of self-efficacy may stop, even if they have made
the initial choice to take on the task.
In January of 2020, teachers across the country will begin a CS education program at EC.
Those who attend will have deliberately chosen to learn the CS-specific content knowledge and
PCK required to effectively teach CS. To continue in the program, teachers will have to
demonstrate personal self-efficacy to learn challenging content and practices that are likely new
to them. As Hazzan, Gal-Ezer, and Ragonis (2010) noted, teachers in a CS education program
will need to develop their understanding of challenging content while also learning about best
practices in CS education. Additionally, teachers will need to consider the research behind
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 25
effective practices in CS education (Hazzan et al., 2010), and such investigation of research may
also be new to teachers. For individuals who are currently full-time teachers, engaging in such a
rigorous program while also teaching could be incredibly challenging. Those who believe they
can succeed and invest an appropriate amount of cognitive work (Clark & Estes, 2008) will more
likely persevere through the necessary content and PCK development to become CS teachers.
Collective self-efficacy. In addition to an individual’s personal self-efficacy, there is also
collective self-efficacy, which focuses on the belief that success can occur through a group effort
when each member of the group is succeeding (Bandura, 2000). Collective self-efficacy can
determine whether individuals work toward a shared goal, how well they utilize resources, and
whether they choose to persist in the face of a challenge (Bandura, 2000). Both self-efficacy and
collective self-efficacy are important influences when considering whether novice and aspiring
CS teachers will take the steps necessary to develop their knowledge of CS content and
pedagogy as well as whether they will eventually teach CS.
Research has demonstrated that many CS teachers often feel alone and isolated at their
schools because they are the only CS teacher (Goode, 2007; Ryoo et al.,2016; Yadav et al.,
2016). As a result, novice and aspiring CS teachers will need to develop a sense of collective
efficacy with other novice and aspiring secondary CS teachers to work toward the shared goal of
becoming CS teachers at their individual schools. The impact of developing such collective
efficacy on the success of the aspiring CS teachers is monumental, as those who believe the
group is succeeding are more likely to persist and reach their own goals (Bandura, 2000).
However, self-efficacy is not the only influence on novice and aspiring CS teachers’ motivation.
Novice and aspiring CS teachers must also demonstrate interest in the content and a desire to
teach their students.
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 26
Interest. The second motivational influence to be considered is interest, specifically
situational and individual (also known as personal) interest (Schraw et al., 2001). Schraw et al.
(2001) define situational interest as occurring in the moment based on the setting and individual
interest as being associated with an individual’s specific affinity for a task or activity. Interest
must be developed and sustainable, as individuals who are interested in a topic or task are more
likely to be engaged and persist through challenges (Schraw et al., 2001). Individual interest can
also be intentionally nurtured to more from emerging to well-developed (Renninger & Hidi,
2006). For novice and aspiring CS teachers, it is essential that both types of interest are
developed.
Research has demonstrated that effective CS teachers need to have a personal interest in
the content they are tasked with teaching (Bender, Schaper, Caspersen, Margaritis, & Hubwieser,
2016). In a study of 17 CS education experts, Bender et al. (2016) found that one of the most
important criteria for an effective CS teacher was excitement and interest in CS content,
especially the new developments being made in the field of CS. Additionally, and just as
importantly, teachers must also demonstrate excitement for teaching CS, as evidenced by the
communication of their obvious passion for the subject to their students (Bender et al., 2016).
Novice and aspiring CS teachers with high levels of personal interest will be more likely to
persevere though the many challenges of learning CS-specific content and pedagogy. They will
also be more likely to develop a better understanding of the content and PCK due to their
increased engagement and effort (Schraw et al., 2001). Any professional development designed
to support novice and aspiring CS teachers will need to be developed to increase the individual
interest of the teachers.
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 27
A number of techniques exist to increase individual interest, especially in learning
situations. Renninger and Hidi (2006) note that individual interest can be developed from
situational interest by external support, such as from facilitator of trainings demonstrating their
own interest in the content while also providing options based on teachers’ preferences. Well-
developed individual interest can be supported through the use of expert models and peer
feedback (Renninger & Hidi, 2006). Barr and Stephenson (2011) suggest that the content be
immediately applicable for teachers who are already in the profession, specifically by providing
resources and access to a community of CS teachers. These recommendations can be built into a
CS education program for novice and aspiring CS teachers by hiring qualified and passionate
instructors, combining content and pedagogy into all sessions, and by consistently providing
choices to teachers about how they can apply the content. Given that novice and aspiring CS
teachers will have a variety of experiences and content knowledge, providing options in terms of
content and PCK can support all teachers in developing individual interest. A summary of the
assessments to be used to measure the self-efficacy and interest of aspiring secondary CS
teachers is included in Table 1.
Organizational Influences
Educators seeking to teach CS in the USA encounter a number of challenges, including a
lack of formalized education programs (e.g., Adrion et al., 2016; Yadav et al., 2017). Many CS
teachers are teaching themselves the content (Yadav et al. 2016) as they are not supported
through appropriate professional development (Gal-Ezer & Stephenson, 2010). Education
programs for CS, as a result, need to provide support for teachers as they develop their
knowledge and skills. Indeed, organizational support is considered to be the third pillar for
achieving goals, alongside knowledge and motivation (Clark & Estes, 2008). The approach for
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 28
support depends on the culture of an organization, which, according to Clark and Estes (2008),
must be alignment with the stated goals of the stakeholders in order for those goals to be met.
Determining organizational culture, however, can be difficult, as culture is often changing and is
not always seen on the surface level (Rueda, 2011). As such, the organizational support will be
described in terms of cultural models and settings (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001).
Cultural models. Within every organization exists cultural models, which Gallimore
and Goldenberg (2001) define as the collective conceptions and beliefs about the essence of the
organization and how it should operate. The cultural models are often so ingrained in the
organization that those who work within the organization are not consciously aware of them
(Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). At EC, for example, one of the underlying cultural models is
the belief that all teacher preparation courses are ultimately designed to support the academic and
character development of their PK-12 students. As a result, many efforts are made by the EC
staff and faculty to partner with schools and teachers that are aligned to their goals for PK-12
students. This cultural model will certainly frame any CS education program, as research has
demonstrated that many principals, while voicing support for CS, are not hiring or developing
CS teachers (Google, 2016). Additionally, many CS education programs are not working
directly with schools or districts to align the content of their professional development (Meneske,
2015). A CS education program at EC, therefore, would need to support teachers in gaining buy-
in from their schools, though it might require additional communication to make sure that all
stakeholders are aligned on the goals of the program.
Cultural settings. Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) define cultural settings as the
places and ways in which those in an organization interact and exist together. At EC, the
instructional setting is often a PK-12 classroom, with strong current and former teachers leading
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 29
instruction. Instructors often model effective pedagogical practices, and thus it will be the
responsibility of EC to provide such role models for the aspiring CS teachers in any CS
education program. A summary of the assessments to be used to measure the influence of the
cultural models and settings of aspiring secondary CS teachers is included in Table 1.
Table 1. Summary of Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
Organizational Mission
The mission statement of EC is to develop teachers and school leaders to support PK-12
students in acquiring both academic and character knowledge and skills.
Organizational Goal
By January 2020, the CS department at EC will develop a CS education professional
development program that will enroll 40 novice and aspiring secondary CS teachers.
Assumed Knowledge Influences Knowledge Influence Assessment
Declarative Factual: Teachers need to know
computer science content knowledge.
Interview Question 7: From your perspective,
what is computer science?
Interview Question 8: How would you
describe your knowledge of computer
science?
Interview Question 20: Would you be
learning the computer science content first
and then how to teach it, or would you want
to learn the content and the teaching
techniques at the same time?
Procedural: Teachers need to know to teach a
computer science class (i.e. computer science
pedagogical knowledge).
Interview Question 10: What is your
experience in teaching computer science?
Interview Question 11: How would you
describe your knowledge of how to teach
computer science?
Interview Question 13: How would you
describe the class(es) that you currently
teach?
Interview Question 14: How would your class
look different if you were teaching computer
science?
Assumed Motivation Influences Motivational Influence Assessment
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 30
Self-Efficacy: Teachers need to believe they
are prepared to effectively teach a computer
science class.
Interview Question 5: Why are you interested
in participating in the program?
Interview Question 15: What would need to
happen to teach computer science?
Interview Question 17: What would you be
learning [in your ideal professional
development]?
Self-Efficacy: Teachers need to believe they
are part of a community of computer science
educators.
Interview Question 18: Who would be
attending the PD with you [in your ideal
professional development]?
Interest: Teachers need to have an interest in
computer science generally.
Interview Question 9: What interests you
about computer science?
Interest: Teachers need to have an interest in
teaching computer science.
Interview Question 12: What interests you
about teaching computer science?
Assumed Organizational Influences Organization Influence Assessment
Cultural Model Influence:
The organization needs to support teachers in
being able to teach computer science within
their respective schools.
Interview Question 4: How did you learn
about the program?
Interview Question 6: Did anyone at your
school recommend you take the program?
Interview Question 16: Would buy-in from
your school leadership be a limiting factor?
Interview Question 21: Are you seeking to
teach a stand-alone CS class? Or do you want
to integrate CS into your current class?
Cultural Setting Influence:
The organization needs to provide effective
role models during the professional
development to demonstrate how to learn and
apply the appropriate computer science
content knowledge and pedagogical content
knowledge.
Interview Question 19: Describe your ideal
PD instructor.
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 31
Interactive Conceptual Framework
Maxwell (2013) defined a conceptual framework as “the system of concepts,
assumptions, expectations, beliefs, and theories” (p. 39) used to develop research. Through the
conceptual framework, a researcher can detail the major ideas to be studied while also describing
how those ideas will be explained and supported (Maxwell, 2013). The conceptual framework
makes explicit the positions of the researcher, as every researcher brings a unique set of
experiences, values, and opinions to their work (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). As Merriam and
Tisdell (2016) noted, even qualitative research, an inductive process, is based on the conceptual
framework that guides the specific researcher. In addition to presenting the conceptions of the
researcher, the conceptual framework also serves to rationalize the need for the specific research,
while demonstrating how the proposed research fits into the current bodies of work (Maxwell,
2013). As such, a conceptual framework for this study is presented in Figure 1 and explained in
the following paragraphs.
Figure 1 provides an illustration of the interaction between the knowledge and motivation
needs of novice and aspiring CS teachers within the context of an EC CS education program.
The CS education program exists within the EC organizational structure and will ultimately lead
to the achievement of the stakeholder goal. The blue circle represents the EC organizational
models and settings required to support the needs of the aspiring secondary CS teachers.
Specifically, the cultural models include alignment between EC and the schools of the
participants in the CS education program. Additionally, the cultural settings focus on the use of
experienced CS teachers as instructors for EC programs.
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 32
Figure 1. Interaction of Knowledge and Motivation Needs with Organizational Settings and
Models
Within the EC organizational structure exists the organizational goal, represented by the
orange circle. Specifically, the goal is to develop a CS program that meets the knowledge and
motivational needs of novice and aspiring CS teachers, which are represented by the two black
Equity College
Cultural models: alignment between EC and school
partners
Cultural settings: experienced teachers as instructors
Stakeholder Goal
By summer of 2021, novice and
aspiring CS teachers enrolling in
an EC CS education program will
be teaching a stand-alone CS
class or integrating CS principles
into their current subjects.
CS Education Program
Key
Stakeholder
influencers
Organization
Organizational
Goal
Stakeholder Goal
Interaction
Interaction Leads
to
Novice and
Aspiring CS
Teachers:
Motivation
• Self-Efficacy:
individual and
collective
• Interest: CS
generally and
teaching CS
Novice and
Aspiring CS
Teachers:
Knowledge
• Declarative: CS
Content
Knowledge
• Procedural: CS
Pedagogical
Content
Knowledge
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 33
rectangles. The interaction between the knowledge and motivational needs is represented by the
double-tipped black arrow, as both needs must be addressed before the organizational goal can
be achieved. Specifically, the knowledge required of aspiring secondary CS teachers is content
knowledge specific to CS and PCK specific to CS. Motivation is determined by individual and
collective self-efficacy and interest, both for CS generally and the teaching of CS. Finally, the
single-tipped black arrow leads to the stakeholder goal, which is illustrated by the purple
rectangle. The stakeholder goal can only be achieved if the program meets the knowledge and
motivational needs of the novice and aspiring CS teachers while existing within the cultural
models and settings of EC.
Data Collection
To develop an understanding of the knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs of
novice and aspiring CS teachers, data from formal interviews and document analysis was
collected. Formal interviews provided the majority of the data, and served to examine each of
the knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs. The researcher of this study sought to
understand the various perspectives of novice and aspiring CS teachers and thus used a semi-
structured approach to interviewing. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) noted that the semi-structured
protocol is often used when the researcher wants the flexibility to react to the participants’
responses while also having a structure of questions to work within. Such a structure utilizes an
interview guide to provide some level of consistency between participants while also allowing
the interview to feel more like a conversation rather than a formal interview (Patton, 2002).
Specifically, the interviews were conducted to learn about the perceptions of teachers as they
relate to their current knowledge gaps, their interest and self-efficacy, and their beliefs about
teaching CS and CS professional development.
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 34
Document analysis was also conducted to gather additional insights into the knowledge
needs of novice and aspiring CS teachers seeking to participate in an EC CS education program.
Specifically, data from a pre-test was collected and analyzed to supplement the interview data.
The pre-test was taken by teachers as part of their participation in the current EC CS education
program.
Interviews
Interview protocol. The semi-structured interview approach allowed the researcher of
this study to look for patterns across the responses from participants while also providing enough
flexibility for the researcher to probe for additional insights when appropriate. Additionally,
based on the flow of the interview, the researcher at times chose to alter the order of the
questions when a participant began to provide commentary on questions that were designed to be
asked later in the interview. This flexibility supported a conversational tone, which was
preferred by the researcher given that he did not have existing relationships with most of the
participants prior to the interviews.
The semi-structured interviews were used to understand the perceived knowledge,
motivation, and organizational needs of the novice and aspiring CS teachers participating in the
study. Open-ended questions were utilized to allow the participant to guide the conversation
(Krueger & Casey, 2009) about their perceptions of CS education and their experiences with
learning and teaching CS. Specifically, the researcher posed knowledge questions, which Patton
(2002) described as being used to determine what a participant knows about a subject. The
researcher was seeking to understand what participants know about CS content and the teaching
of CS. Additionally, the researcher asked questions related to feelings about self-efficacy and
interest in CS to understand the motivation needs of novice and aspiring CS teachers. Feeling
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 35
questions, according to Patton (2002), allow the researcher to gain insights into the emotions of
the participants, rather than their knowledge of the topic. The researcher of this study was
seeking to understand if feelings like intimidation or anxiety are barriers to teaching CS, and thus
included feeling questions alongside the knowledge questions. Finally, the researcher included
opinion questions to understand how the participants conceptualized their experiences (Patton,
2002). Opinion questions provided the researcher with insights into how aspiring secondary CS
teachers have experienced learning about CS and CS education in the past as well as the
organizational gaps that may exist and have been barriers to teaching CS. The specific research
questions used in the interviews are included in Appendix B.
Interview procedures. Interviews with the novice and aspiring CS teachers were
conducted as the first method of data collection in the study. Once the interviews were
completed, scores from a content knowledge pre-test were analyzed. This sequence of
approaches was chosen to provide additional insights after the interviews were conducted about
the knowledge needs of teachers seeking to participate in an EC CS education program.
Additional rationale for the sequencing of data collection approaches is provided later in this
paper.
While each interview was scheduled for one hour, the average interview time was 45.7
minutes. Nine novice and aspiring CS teachers elected to participate in the study, resulting in a
total interview time of approximately seven hours. Such timing is aligned with Weiss’s (1994)
recommendations for interviews to last between 30 and 60 minutes. Weiss (1994) also
recommended interviewing participants a second or third time when possible, however the time
constraints of this study allowed for only one interview per participant. Even though multiple
interviews would likely have been helpful in building rapport with the participants (Weiss,
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 36
1994), the semi-structured interview protocol supported a conversational tone throughout each
interview. Additionally, even though the interviews were formal, the semi-structured approach
allowed for a brief period of rapport-building at the beginning of each interview.
The participants in the study were given the option of being interviewed in their
classrooms or via a video-conferencing program. Even though Weiss (1994) noted that
participants usually prefer for the researcher to come to them, eight of the nine participants
elected to conduct the interview via video-conferencing. Data from the interviews was captured
both by handwritten notes and a recording device. A built-in recording feature was used during
the video-conferencing interviews and a smartphone device with a recording feature was used
during the classroom interview. Audio recording with focused notes was used to avoid taking
verbatim notes, as verbatim notetaking can distract from careful listening during the interview
(Patton, 2002). Additionally, the interviews were recorded to allow the researcher to consider
other aspects of the conversation, such as changes in intonation or pitch, which can be lost when
only notetaking is used (Weiss, 1994).
Documents and Artifacts
Scores from a content knowledge pre-test were also collected and analyzed as part of the
research process. According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), documents and artifacts should be
included if the materials will provide insight to the researcher and can be obtained sensibly and
methodologically. The documents and artifacts can be used to supplement interview data and as
a way to verify statements made by participants in the interviews (Bowen, 2009). Given that
each participant in the study was intending to enroll in the current EC CS education program,
each participant completed a 30-question pre-test about basic programming concepts prior to the
start of the program. The pre-test was completed online via a learning management system that
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 37
is used for the current EC CS education program. The scores on the pre-test were used to verify
interview statements about CS content knowledge. Individual scores are not reported to protect
the confidentiality of the relatively small sample size; however, an average score was determined
for the participants and is provided in the findings section of this paper.
Data Analysis
For the interviews, data analysis began during the data collection process. Reflective
memos were written after each interview to document the researchers’ initial thoughts, concerns
about biases, and potential patterns related to the conceptual framework and the research
questions. The audio recordings were professionally transcribed using the Rev.com transcription
service and were reviewed for accuracy before any coding was completed.
The coding process was completed using the NVivo 12 computer software, starting with
open-coding. A priori and empirical coding were then completed, with a priori coding using the
conceptual framework. Axial coding followed the open coding with the researcher using the
software to group participant responses into categories. The categories were updated as
additional interviews were completed to more accurately describe the patterns and themes that
emerged.
After three interviews were conducted, an analytical memo focusing on specific patterns
was written. After all the interviews were conducted, descriptive statistical analysis was
conducted using the data collected from the knowledge pre-tests. The average score from the
pre-test was compared to the participants’ statements about their own content knowledge to see if
their performance was consistent with their beliefs.
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 38
Findings
Data from interviews and document analysis were used to develop a set of findings
aligned with the Gap Analysis Framework (Clark & Estes, 2008). Specifically, findings are
described in the following paragraphs that align with knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences. The findings represent the perspectives of nine participants that elected to participate
in the study (18 individuals met the specific sampling criterion, as described in Appendix A).
Their names are Donovan, Gary, Grace, Luka, Mandy, Martin, Megan, Neil, and Sonia
(pseudonyms). These participants were able to provide clear and insightful thoughts on their
experiences and needs as related to CS and the teaching of CS. Solutions and recommendations
aligned to the findings are described in subsequent sections.
A Need for Content and Pedagogical Content Knowledge
The first research question explored in this study considered the knowledge needs of
novice and aspiring CS teachers seeking to participate in an EC CS education program. In
particular, the researcher sought to understand the declarative and procedural knowledge needs
of the participants. Declarative knowledge includes both factual and conceptual understandings
of a particular topic while procedural knowledge includes the skill-based and practical
understandings of the topic (Krathwohl, 2002). The data from the interviews and document
analysis revealed that the participants needed both types of knowledge related to CS and the
teaching of CS. The needs of the participants are illustrated in the following paragraphs, starting
first with content knowledge and then pedagogical content knowledge.
Computer science content knowledge. Shulman (1986) noted that one of the essential
areas of knowledge for prepared teachers is content-specific knowledge. In the field of CS
education, a number of definitions have been used over the last few decades to describe CS (Barr
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 39
& Stephenson, 2011) and there currently exist a number of misconceptions about what
constitutes CS (K-12 Computer Science Framework, n.d.). Recently, a more widely accepted
definition has been presented by Tucker et al. (2003): “Computer science (CS) is the study of
computers and algorithmic processes, including their principles, their hardware and software
designs, their applications, and their impact on society” (p. 6). This definition has been adopted
by both the authors of the K-12 CS Framework (K-12 Computer Science Framework, n.d.) and
in a 2010 landmark paper by Wilson et al. on issues in CS education in the United States.
Teachers in the study demonstrated that they needed the content knowledge required to
be prepared CS teachers. While each participant in this study was able to describe their
understanding of CS, none of the teachers were able to articulate a vision of CS aligned to what
has been described by experts in the field. The majority (n = 8) of the participants in the study,
when asked to define CS, described CS as the use of a computer to accomplish tasks. Neil noted
that CS included “training your computer to do exactly what you want it to do” while Martin
described CS as “finding manners of getting machines to work for us…finding ways or
developing ways of solving problems such that we can get machines to work for us.” Donovan
stated that CS is “about telling computers what to do…it’s about giving very specific directions”
and Grace noted that CS is “learning how to get a computer to do what you want it to based on
parameters and information that you put into it.” While these responses demonstrate that many
teachers held similar views on the role of computers in CS, the responses also illustrate how
teachers understand the interactions between computers and users, rather than computers
operating in isolation.
Several (n = 4) participants in the study also described coding or programming as part of
CS. Gary noted that CS “revolves around programming and programming languages and things
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 40
like that, running on a system of algorithms” while Donovan noted that CS “can include a ton of
…problem solving, and it involves code, and it involves functions.” Sonia simply named CS as
“the discussion and the development of a language” whereas Luka referenced Python as a
specific language. These statements demonstrate that while teachers recognize the usage of
computers and programming aspects of CS, they are not including hardware in their definitions
of CS and are also not considering the impact of CS on the world. In essence, participants’
responses illustrated that they were entering the EC CS program with limited content knowledge.
These responses align with the body of research about CS teachers in the United States, who
often need the content knowledge required to teach a CS class (Goode, 2007; Yadav et al., 2016).
The gap in CS-specific content knowledge was confirmed by the teachers’ scores on the
pre-test associated with the current EC CS program. The pre-test, which included 30 multiple
choice questions on introductory programming concepts (e.g., variables, loops, conditionals,
functions), was taken by all teachers participating in the survey prior to the start of the current
EC CS program. The average score was 8.1 out of 30 points, with a standard deviation of 4.87.
Computer science pedagogical content knowledge. In addition to content knowledge,
Shulman (1986) noted that prepared teachers also need pedagogical content knowledge (PCK),
which is the content knowledge required for teaching a particular subject. Specifically, teachers
should be able to teach subject-specific concepts in multiple ways and be able to address student
misconceptions and points of confusion (Shulman, 1986). Additionally, CS teachers should be
able to justify their use of media in their teaching and be able to evaluate student progress
(Bender et al., 2015).
Participants in the study demonstrated that they needed the PCK required to be prepared
CS teachers. Of the nine participants, three had taught a CS-specific class, one had introduced
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 41
students to CS websites as extra credit, one had supported an afterschool robotics club, and four
had never done any CS or CS-related teaching. All teachers, however, when asked about the
teaching of CS, described the teaching of CS by naming experiences with popular online
teaching resources, such as Scratch and Code.org. Martin, Neil, Mandy, Donovan, Grace, Sonia,
Luka, and Gary all mentioned that Scratch was a useful tool for teaching CS. Neil, in particular,
noted that “Scratch is really great for elementary and middle school students because it's a lot
more visual than a lot of coding websites.” Megan, Grace, and Donovan associated Code.org
with the teaching of CS, with Megan noting that “I'm liking teaching Code Discoveries…It's a
lot of fun…I just also feel like that's what it is, is fun…I don't know if it's super rigorous.” These
responses demonstrate that while participants in the EC CS program were aware of various
online resources to support the teaching of CS, they were not able to provide descriptions of how
these resources might be used to effectively teach CS.
Many of the participants (n=6) stated that they believed the teaching of CS could be very
similar to their current classes. Luka, for example, noted that “I don't think…things would be
very different…But I do think that I would be more intentional about letting kids fail.” Martin, a
math teacher, described a vision for a CS class that would be similar to his math class with a CS
extension:
The vision of the class would stay very similar. I think the main shift would be how we
go about solving some of these problems…We're coming up with the sets of rules, but
then taking that extra steps to say, "Okay, how could we incorporate anything we've
learned in computer science into a way of solving this real world problem of finding
different manners of dealing with what we're confronted with right now?"
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 42
Megan, who was currently teaching a CS class, described the teaching of CS to be quite similar
to the teaching of math, with CS projects being more complex and taking longer to complete:
I think it's the idea that's similar of presenting the challenge first. Like in fifth grade, we
presented this random problem with a sign and trying to figure out how to add fractions.
We had to realize we had to get a common denominator and that discussion. It's similar in
CS Discoveries. I just think that the problems are larger. So, it's like you need to create a
game that entertains, and from there, how does one create it? I think it's almost the
difference between task-based learning versus project-based learning is where they differ.
In CS Discovery, there's a project, and in math, we do tasks. Our tasks tend to culminate
and finish in one day. CS Discoveries, I think they're supposed to finish faster, but it
took us, like, three months to finish our websites.
Such responses demonstrate that while teachers choosing to participate in the current EC CS
program were actively thinking about how they would approach teaching CS, their current levels
of PCK were not sufficient to be prepared CS teachers. This need for PCK confirms what is well
documented in the literature about CS teachers in the United States (e.g., Bender et al., 2015;
Cutts et al., 2017; Meneske, 2015). Given that none of the teachers referenced student
misconceptions, specific instructional methods, or approaches to evaluation, there is a clear need
for the development of PCK in teachers attending the EC CS program.
Motivations for Teaching Computer Science
The research questions also considered the motivation needs of novice and aspiring CS
teachers seeking to attend an EC CS education program. Specifically, self-efficacy and interest
were considered as motivation influences. Individual self-efficacy, the belief that one can start,
persist through, and complete a task (Usher & Pajares, 2008) was considered, along with
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 43
collective self-efficacy, which is associated with beliefs in the success of the community
(Bandura, 2000). Interest, which can support an individual in persisting through challenging
circumstances (Schraw et al., 2001) was considered both for CS generally and the teaching of
CS. The data from the study revealed that while participants demonstrated well-developed
individual interest for the teaching of CS, there were gaps in terms of interest for CS generally
along with individual and collective self-efficacy. The motivational needs are demonstrated in
the following paragraphs, starting first with self-efficacy and followed by interest.
Individual self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is a primary indicator for motivation (Bandura,
2000). Bandura (2000) noted that when individuals have high levels of self-efficacy, they are
more likely to start, persist, and complete tasks. Self-efficacy can be developed by having
mastery experiences in which individuals are able to see themselves as able to take on and
complete specific tasks (Usher & Pajares, 2008). In the field of CS education, experts note that
prepared teachers must believe that they know the CS-specific content and are able to teach a CS
class (Bender et al., 2016).
While many of the participants in the study voiced that they were excited to learn, none
believed that they currently knew enough to successfully teach a CS class. Megan, when
considering what would hold her back from teaching CS, noted that “the biggest obstacle is my
knowledge.” Gary, similarly, noted how his need for CS content knowledge had him feeling
hesitant to teach CS, especially when considering his currently teaching placement of high
school math:
I'm also someone like, I really don't want to teach something unless I'm super
comfortable with it myself. I think with math, I just took so much in college even though
it's outside of my major. I feel like my knowledge is way above what I have to teach it.
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 44
It's nice to have that big gap. Whereas if it was computer science, I feel really
uncomfortable teaching at this level.
Sonia, who had also not pursued teaching CS, noted that she had felt a fear of teaching students
the inaccurate content because of her need for content:
I think unfortunately my own fear of coding…kind of put a blockade for me, and it was
kind of like, "Well, what if I teach this wrong? Or what if I teach that wrong." I don't
want to mess up this student's understanding of this and I've taught it wrong.
Luka, another participant who had not taught a CS class, had wondered whether he was even
capable of learning CS: “for someone like me, really until I heard about kids doing scratch, I was
like, "I'm not even sure I'm capable of doing ... Like, my time has passed in terms of my ability
to learn it, right?” Megan, on the other hand, already had several months of experience teaching
a CS class. She noted that her teaching was less effective because of her need for content
knowledge:
I think content knowledge is where I lack. I'm reflective over the fact that I will pull back
from a strong discovery-based model when I get scared that I don't know what the answer
should be and feel, at some level, I'm like, "I don't actually know how to fix what's going
on. This is the one we've discovered is a problem today, so what do we do? I don't
know. Let me pull back and make a drill."
Grace, who was also several months into teaching a CS class, noted that her lack of content
knowledge had left her without a lot of direction: “It's so brand new to me that I'm really just
relying on my one fifth grader…who's very, very into computer science, to be telling me where
we need to go.” Such responses demonstrate that teachers seeking to participate in the current
EC CS program do not have high levels of self-efficacy related to CS-specific knowledge and
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 45
PCK. These beliefs are echoed in the literature on CS teacher self-efficacy, as many teachers
currently teaching CS do not believe that they are prepared to be effective CS educators (Bender
et al., 2016).
Even though participants did not believe that they knew enough to effectively teach a CS
class, several (n = 3) had sought to build their content knowledge prior to enrolling in the EC CS
program. Neil, for example, had “used Codecademy primarily” and “Excel courses to program a
lot of…spreadsheets.” Martin described using an “Udemy course on Python…as well as…an
online Stanford class that went a little bit through Java.” Megan had also used online programs;
however, she had struggled to stay motivated, stating that:
When I started to teach my course, I would just try to do some MOOCs and some
different things…The problem was there's no accountability, so I'm like, "It's Tuesday at
10:00. I should do a little more MOOC." I was like, "No, I shouldn't. I should just go to
bed."
These responses demonstrate that while teachers recognized that their need for content
knowledge was impeding their ability to start or effectively teach a CS class, they had previously
attempted to build their content knowledge. Such actions mirror what has been seen in other
studies of CS teachers who have attempted to build their own content knowledge by themselves
(Goode, 2007; Yadav et al., 2016).
Collective self-efficacy. In addition to individual self-efficacy, Bandura (2000) noted
that a person’s level of motivation is also dependent on how they view their group or
community’s collective ability. When individuals believe in the collective self-efficacy of their
group, they are more likely to be motivated to start, persist, and complete tasks (Bandura, 2000).
For CS teachers, who are frequently isolated at their own schools, their community is often
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 46
created from the professional development they attend (Goode, 2007; Ryoo et al., 2016; Yadav
et al., 2016).
Participants in the study described the opportunity to engage in a community of CS
teachers as important to their success in the program. For many participants (n=7), working with
a community of other CS educators would allow them to share new ideas and get different
perspectives. Martin, for example, noted that he was eager to work with people from outside his
school to “get fresh ideas” while Mandy discussed the potential of collaborating with teachers
from various grade levels within her school district:
I'm in a really big school district right now where as we're starting at the grassroots level,
we could support each other, make sure we have people to bounce ideas off of…so you
might have a second-grade teacher and a fifth-grade teacher, and third grade from a
different school, and a fourth grade from a different school.
Sonia, who had described feeling apprehensive about her need for content knowledge, noted that
having community members with more experience could help her avoid potential content
pitfalls:
I would like there to be some people that already have been in programming… I would
love for there to be somebody to say, “Hey, so when you're doing this, one thing that's
beneficial is if you also did that.”
Grace, who was teaching both math and a CS elective, noted that she wanted a community for
CS similar to what she had for math at her school:
There's so many more heads in that thinking game…it's me, and it's the math coach, and
it's the fifth grade math teacher, and then it's also our assistant principal, and then it's
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 47
the…data person. And so, we're being very, very intentional about allocating the thought
and time for it, whereas the electives, it's just not the same.
These responses demonstrate that teachers seeking to participate in the EC CS program were
eager to collaborate with and learn from the community created by program. Being able to share
ideas and learn from the experiences of others, especially in a subject area as isolated as CS, is a
continuing theme in the literature on effective CS professional development (Goode, 2007; Ryoo
et al., 2016; Yadav et al., 2016).
While none of the participants in the study had a preference for whether their colleagues
came from similar or different schools, many (n=7) believed that it would be crucial for the
community to be composed of like-minded individuals who shared their enthusiasm and desire to
learn. Mandy, for example, noted that she wanted to engage with participants who are “open-
minded and…forward thinking” while Luka wanted to work with colleagues “who are all in.”
Grace added that her ideal peers would be:
Committed to increasing access and opportunities for our kids, because that's why I'm in
this work, and so that makes it easier when I'm having conversations with colleagues to
feel like we're really, authentically connected in something.
These statements demonstrate that participants were eager to work with a community of like-
minded individuals who shared their passion and excitement for learning and teaching CS.
Being able to connect with other CS educators working toward a similar goal has been
demonstrated to support teachers who feel isolated at their own schools (Ryoo et al., 2016).
Interest in computer science generally. When learning content that is complex and
challenging, individual interest allows a person to stay motivated (Renninger, 2000). Individual
interest, also known as personal interest, varies by person and can be related to the amount of
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 48
prior knowledge one has in a content area (Schraw et al., 2001). Individual interest can range
from emerging to well-developed, with individuals with well-developed individual interest
demonstrating the greatest motivation to persist during challenging experiences (Hidi &
Renninger, 2006). Experts in the field of CS note that effective CS teachers should demonstrate
interest in computer science (Bender et al., 2016). Specifically, CS teachers should exhibit high
levels of interest in the content and in the progress being made in the CS field (Bender et al.,
2016).
While almost all participants in the study (n=8) articulated some interest in CS, none
were able to clearly articulate what they found to be interesting about CS. Some participants
(n=5) described the problem-solving aspect of CS to be appealing. Martin, for example, noted
his interest being connected to the “specificity and the problem solving” aspects of CS. Neil
described his interest in CS as being related to both problem-solving and the creative nature of
CS:
There's two different parts that really excite me about computer science. I think the first
one is you can create so many different things, so just like the creation process with
websites, different programs, things like that. It's like a very big creation process. And
then the second part is a lot of once things are set up, we're just solving problems, so I
think teaching that skill of being, “Hey, this is what you've set up within your program.
This isn't working, and you wanted to do this. How do you go back and solve these
problems?” The problem-solving aspect of it and the creation as well.
These responses illustrate an emerging level of interest from most of the participants in the study.
Individuals were able to articulate a general description of their interest as it relates to
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 49
overarching concepts such as problem solving but did not yet have the content knowledge to
provide specific details.
Other participants in the study (n=3) described an inherent curiosity in CS content.
Mandy noted that “Computers have always fascinated me…Even from the very beginning of the
internet itself…” while Sonia noted that she was curious about the lives of programmers: “I
wanted to know what they actually, like what do they do on a day to day basis.” Luka described
his interest in CS as being related to a level of curiosity and his competitive nature:
For me, it's like one of the times I've been able to satiate some level of curiosity. Because
the thing I love about it is that there's...Like, these problem sets are challenges, right?
And you know if you get it right. Because the ball's going to bounce up and bounce
down, right? So, there's a challenge aspect to it that appeals to my competitive side.
These participants, similar to those who noted problem-solving as interesting, are able to
describe their interest in broad and general terms. Being able to generate questions that
demonstrate curiosity, such as those from Sonia and Luka, are in line with the research on
emerging individual interest (Hidi & Renninger, 2006). However, given that participants in the
study were only able to articulate general and somewhat vague notions of their interest in CS,
there is a clear need for development to move their emerging individual interest to more well-
developed interest.
Interest in teaching computer science. Bender et al. (2016) note that teachers of CS
must also demonstrate a keen interest in the teaching of CS. In particular, CS educators must be
able to convey their excitement for CS to their students and exhibit a strong desire for their
students to learn CS (Bender, 2016). In contrast to participants’ rationale for their interest in CS
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 50
content, participants in this study were able to clearly articulate their individual interest in
teaching computer science.
Every participant in the study described the teaching of CS as important for their
students’ futures. Neil, for example, noted that CS would be important for any student to know
because of the marketability of CS skills:
I don't think anyone that has a computer science background or even just a little bit of
basic coding has been less marketable because of that. It's always a good thing to know
even if you don't necessarily go into it.
Gary, a math teacher, noted that he wanted to prepare students for specific fields: “I want them to
want to go into real math heavy fields or engineering field…you have to use quite a bit of
programming knowledge.” Sonia compared knowing programming to knowing a second
language:
It's going to become another language that you either know or you don't know. And much
like spoken language, the same way it's beneficial to know an additional spoken
language, it's helpful to know, in my opinion, another written language, and in this case
coding.
Mandy reflected on her own family’s experience in explaining why it was important to teach CS:
I think it's also really important to be forward thinking and look at what skills do my
students need to have as they face middle school, as they high school, as they face
college. Because I see now, my daughter who's a freshman in college. She's a nursing
student…It's almost…expected…that she has that coding and computer information for
classes such as statistics.
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 51
These responses demonstrate teachers seeking to attend the current EC CS program have a well-
developed interest in teaching computer science as an effort to prepare their students for future
careers and education.
The majority of participants (n=6) also articulated equity and exposure as reasons for
wanting to teach CS. Grace, who had been struck by the data demonstrating inequities in CS
representation noted that “Something that I'm interested in is the representation and wealth
inequality in STEM, and then also just seeing where that's so, so, so obvious is definitely in entry
level computer science jobs.” Neil echoed this sentiment while making a personal connection to
his family:
I think the biggest excitement for me is just the school I'm at is a Title I lower income
school, and I think that opportunity is really important for a lot of the students. I know I
have some cousins that are middle school or high school level. The opportunities that
they have at this pretty wealthy school in California. Being able to code and go to
different Apple store events and things like that to like learn IOS and all these different
things at a middle school or high school level. And then I go into my classroom, and I'm
like, "These students need a lot more opportunities that my cousins over in California are
getting, but they don't have access to."
Donovan also noted that his interest in equity was the driving reason for him to develop his CS
content knowledge: “I'm looking to double down on what I'm able to advocate for by developing
some of my own skills and knowledge.” Such responses indicate that teachers choosing to
participate in the EC CS education program were already interested in the teaching of CS. They
were motivated not only by the desire to teach their students the skills of the future, but also
because they recognized the inequities that currently exist in CS education.
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 52
Several participants (n=5) also noted that they were eager to teach CS because of the
character skills that can be developed during the learning of CS. Donovan, who had been
working to integrate CS into his elementary classroom, noted that the processes of
troubleshooting and experimenting had supported his students in developing persistence. Luka,
who had not taught any CS, noted that learning CS could bring together several key elements as
“it marries problem solving, grit and perseverance.” Grace, who had been teaching a CS class
for several months, described a specific student that demonstrated desirable attitudes because of
her CS experience:
I have this one scholar, and she's super shy…one of the things that I've been noticing
more and more is that in computer science, she's always on point, always on task…But
I've also got a bunch of pretty rowdy boys in the class, who are all over the place and
really not quite sure what they're doing…she'll hear one of the boys get confused about
something or struggle with something, and she'll offer advice out, which is really, really
cool. Whereas she does not do that, I don't think, too much. Definitely not during math
class, and I can't imagine in her other subjects…she's just volunteering to stand up and go
over to this very rambunctious scholar and really kindly and patiently share her thinking
on it.
These responses provide evidence that teachers seeking to participate in the EC CS education
program are interested in teaching CS because of the character skills that they see as part of
learning CS. Overall, each participant in the study was able to clearly explain why they were
motivated to teach CS. Such well-developed individual interest aligns with the literature on the
motivational needs for prepared CS educators (e.g., Bender et al., 2015; Bender et al., 2016).
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 53
Organizational Needs and Concerns
The first research question in this study also focuses on the organizational needs of
novice and aspiring CS teachers seeking to attend an EC CS education program. Specifically,
the organizational influences considered were cultural models and cultural settings. Cultural
models are the underlying beliefs held by an organization while cultural settings include the
explicit ways in which an organization exists (Gallimore and Goldenberg, 2001). The data from
the study revealed that participants experienced organizational barriers for both influences,
specifically a lack of alignment between their desire to teach CS, their school culture, and their
need for an experienced CS teacher to be their professional development instructor. The
following paragraphs illustrate these needs, starting first with the cultural models and then the
cultural settings.
Alignment with school culture. When considering the barriers faced by aspiring and
novice CS teachers, it is important to consider the cultural models of the schools in which they
teach. Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) described cultural models as the values developed by
organizations over time that define how the organization works. Cultural models exist within
schools and can be seen through the ways in which people in the schools operate (Rueda, 2011).
Additionally, cultural models can be unique to individuals, and understanding how personal and
communal cultural models intersect is crucial to individuals and organizations reaching their
goals (Rueda, 2011).
Participants in the study indicated that alignment with school culture is a major barrier to
the teaching of CS. Specifically, many of the participants (n=5) noted that CS is not currently a
subject that is valued within their school culture. Mandy, for example, described a school culture
that deprioritizes CS and technology in general because of school leadership priorities, noting
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 54
that “we have a new principal, and she's not super computer focused.” This sentiment was
echoed by Donovan, who had been working to integrate CS into his classes but faced opposition
from school leadership, stating that “My principal's been a bit more stifling this year in terms of
what kind of projects I can do.” Luka, a school leader, noted that CS is not currently as
important as some other subjects, wondering “So, how do you get computer science to be said in
the same phrase as reading, writing, math, science, history?” Megan shed some light on such
prioritization by noting that CS is not a tested subject in her school: “I just do think it's hard in
middle school to have a subject that isn't tested…they put more emphasis on the ELA and math.”
These statements illustrate the organizational barriers faced by novice and aspiring teachers in
being able to teach CS at their respective schools. The misalignment of teachers’ desires to teach
CS and their school cultures has been seen in the literature; while school leaders might state that
they believe CS is important, this is often not reflected in the number of CS classes offered
(Google, 2016). The fact that CS is not a tested subject, for example, is a reason provided by
many principals for why CS is not offered as frequently as other subjects (Google, 2016).
Several teachers (n=3) noted that part of the culture issue might stem from difficulties
related to finding and hiring a CS teacher. Neil, for example, described the difficulty of finding a
CS teacher as an issue for his school, stating that “finding people that are able to teach computer
science and also want to teach at the middle school level is the push-back I've been getting from
my principal.” Megan, a school leader, noted that the additional costs required to hire a CS
teacher might be prohibitive: “I think, for us, it would be the teacher costs…The training might
be free if we did Code.org…but paying a teacher would be different.” Luka, another school
leader, when considering having a teacher teach CS and another subject, stated that “it would just
be really good if I found a great math teacher…to push them to incorporate something that
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 55
they're not familiar with…might be a tough ask for year one.” These responses demonstrate that
the tasks of finding a CS teacher and paying for their position might be causing the low value
placed on CS education by school leaders. Such issues align with the issues identified in the
literature, as many principals note that they struggle to find CS teachers to hire (Google, 2016).
Even though participants in the study had identified alignment with school culture as a
barrier to their teaching of CS, the majority (n=7) had recommendations for how to change the
cultures at their schools. Grace, who had received support from her principal to start a CS class,
noted that “I know that she knows it's important…I think that the level of investment is directly
attached to my personal level of investment.” Mandy recommended providing examples of other
similar schools who were investing in CS education:
I know there are other schools in our district that are really technology savvy, and that's a
huge thing. It's important for them to have one to one technology with their students. It's
important for the students to take a computer technology-based class as a special as
opposed to just gym, and art, and music…I think it would be an easier sell if there were
some established nuggets around the district.
Megan and Luka, school leaders who were also teaching, noted that having someone with
positional power could change the culture. Specifically, Megan stated that “We're doing it
mostly because I was excited about it and I said I wanted to…who's going to stop me, because I
decide what happens?” Luka added that “actually doing the work itself, to me, is probably the
most powerful way to get buy-in.” Such responses demonstrate the variety of ways in which
participants recommended overcoming the barrier caused by the misalignment with school
culture. Advocacy actions from staff members are likely needed, as school leaders often
describe a lack of strong support for CS education from their staff (Google, 2016). These actions
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 56
could likely result in a change in cultural settings, which can have a direct impact on changing
the cultural models of an organization (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001).
Computer science teacher role models. Cultural settings are considered to be the
features of an organization’s context (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Rueda, 2002). These
features can include the people in the organization, the resources provided to complete tasks, or
the location where the work takes place (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Rueda, 2002). For CS
teachers who are attending professional development, the cultural settings of the professional
development can include the instructors leading the sessions.
Participants in the study described the need for a knowledgeable instructor who had
experience teaching CS. The majority of the teachers (n=6) noted that their ideal instructor
would have significant teaching experience teaching. Gary, for example, differentiated between
a content expert teaching CS and a teacher with CS content knowledge, noting that he would
rather be taught by “a teacher who was teaching computer science than a computer scientist who
was teaching.” Martin echoed Gary’s sentiment and added that it would be important to have an
instructor that had practical experience, because a teacher “has seen it in action…teaching theory
vs. teaching practice oftentimes diverge.” Grace also elaborated on the difference between
teachers and content experts, noting that a teacher would have an understanding of the teaching
challenges in addition to the content:
The only computer science PDs that I've ever been to have never been taught by people
who have taught. They're always people who are of the field and who have so much to
discuss about industry and about what they're actually working on and all these amazing
things that kids can do by the time that they're out of twelfth grade. But that just feels so
disconnected from being in front of a room of behavior to manage. And so that's
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 57
something that I always think is very, very helpful, of have somebody who can talk about
common experiences and what it actually looks and feels and sounds like in a classroom.
These responses demonstrate that participants in the study were eager to learn from an
experienced CS teacher. This notion is supported in the literature on effective professional
development, as teachers should have the opportunity to engage in active learning that includes
observing expert educators (Desimone, 2009).
In addition to having teaching experience, several participants (n=5) in the study
recommended having an instructor with strong CS content knowledge. Gary noted that the
instructor must know the content well enough to break it down for a beginner, stating that “my
main concern is someone [will] just go way over my head in the first couple lessons.”
Additionally, Sonia described the instructor’s content knowledge as being broad enough to
provide a complete vision of CS, noting that the instructor should be “somebody that has
experience using programs and has experience writing code and using the code that we're going
to be learning, so that they can provide us with as holistic a view as possible.” Martin added that
the ideal instructor would be incredibly passionate about CS content: “I'm inspired by people
who love their subject…That's the key thing for me.” Such responses indicate that the instructor
must not only have experience teaching but must also be able to demonstrate their content
knowledge. This aligns with the research on effective CS educators, who must have strong
content knowledge and be able to convey their love for CS to their students (Bender et al., 2015;
Bender et al., 2016).
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 58
Solutions and Recommendations
Knowledge Recommendations
The analysis of the needs of novice and aspiring CS teachers seeking to participate in the
EC CS program validated several knowledge influences from the literature review. Specifically,
as seen in Table 2, knowledge influences about CS-specific content knowledge and pedagogical
content knowledge were validated. Using the gap-analysis framework described by Clark and
Estes (2008) and the knowledge framework articulated by Krathwohl (2002), all three
knowledge influences were selected for discussion as each influence has a significant impact on
the design of a CS education program. Recommendations for addressing each need are
summarized in Table 2 and discussed in further detail below, including the specific actions
aligned with theoretical principles from cognitive load theory and information processing theory
(Mayer, 2011).
Table 2. Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Knowledge
Influence
Validated
as a Gap?
Yes, High
Probability
or No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Teachers need to
know computer
science content
knowledge (D)
V Y When introducing
new and complex
content, trainings
should eliminate
extraneous
information to allow
the learner to focus
on the essential
concepts (Mayer,
2011)
Provide a series of
modularized trainings to
learn computer science
content knowledge
Teachers need to
know how to
teach a computer
science class (i.e.,
V Y Learning is improved
when practice
opportunities happen
frequently but are
Provide short and frequent
training opportunities to
support the development of
computer science
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 59
computer science
pedagogical
knowledge) (P)
shorter in duration
(Mayer, 2011)
Learners improve
their practice when
they receive feedback
(Mayer, 2011)
pedagogical content
knowledge in an
environment where teachers
can practice and receive
feedback from the
instructor and peers
Developing computer science-specific content knowledge. The results and findings of
this study demonstrated that all novice and aspiring CS teachers seeking to attend the EC CS
education program needed to develop their CS-specific content knowledge, including both a
general understanding of CS and the basic concepts of programming. As can be seen in Table 2,
a recommendation based on the cognitive load theory has been selected to close this declarative
knowledge gap. Mayer (2011) noted that learning is enhanced when only the essential concepts
in new and complex content is presented. Eliminating extraneous content increases the cognitive
capacity for essential and deep generative processing, which is required for learning to be
transferred to long-term memory (Mayer, 2011). This would indicate that participants in the EC
CS program, who will be continuously learning new and complex content, should receive
training that has been designed to eliminate extraneous concepts. Thus, it is recommended that
EC education training incorporate technologies that allow the participant to focus only on the
essential concepts when learning new content.
Van Merriёnboer and Ayres (2005), in a review of articles considering the impact of
cognitive load theory when learning on a computer, noted that many learning tasks done on a
computer can include a large number of elements with which a user must interact. Reducing the
extraneous elements can support more cognitive space for essential processing, especially when
content is being learned for the first time (Van Merriёnboer & Ayres, 2005). As the learner
develops their understanding of the content, the number of elements can be increased while
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 60
continuing to provide sufficient cognitive capacity for essential processing (Van Merriёnboer &
Ayres, 2005). The application of this theory was described by Mason and Cooper (2013), who
studied the effects of removing extraneous features from a programming environment for 19
middle school girls learning to program robots for the first time. Researchers compared the
perceived level of difficulty between control and experimental groups to learn that the girls who
only saw the essential features considered the experience to be much less challenging than those
seeing all the available features. The study supports the recommendation to eliminate extraneous
information in learning experiences for participants developing basic CS content knowledge.
Appendix E includes a description of the program, including an overview of the brief nature of
individual professional development sessions to limit the amount of new material being
introduced to participants.
Developing computer science-specific pedagogical content knowledge. In addition to
content knowledge, all teachers seeking to attend the EC CS education program needed to
develop their CS-specific pedagogical content knowledge. As a result, a recommendation based
on the information processing theory for improving practice has been selected to close this
procedural knowledge gap (see Table 2). Mayer (2011) described practice sessions of shorter
duration that occur more frequently as being more beneficial for learners than longer periods of
sustained practice. Additionally, Mayer (2011) noted that frequently provided feedback can also
improve the performance of an individual. Feedback, specifically explanatory feedback that
occurs soon after an individual completes a task, can support the development of skills (Mayer,
2011). Participants in the EC CS education program, therefore, should have the opportunity to
practice in short and frequent bursts while receiving feedback from their instructor and peers
when learning the CS-specific pedagogical content knowledge. The training experience should
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 61
be explicitly designed to allow for consistent feedback that aligns with the reoccurring practice
opportunities.
Desimone (2009) noted that effective teacher professional development programs should
incorporate frequent opportunities for feedback as part of an active learning experience. The
learning experiences should also occur over a longer duration of time, such as a semester
(Desimone, 2009). Additionally, Ryoo et al. (2016) studied a group of 28 teachers engaging in
professional development that focused on recurring development that includes feedback
opportunities. This model was developed in contrast to many CS-specific professional
development opportunities that only happen once as intensive learning experiences, likely during
the summer (Meneske, 2015; Ryoo et al., 2016). The majority of the teachers in the study noted
that the professional development model had impacted their ability to teach CS in inquiry-based
and equity-based manners. These studies support the recommendation that frequent feedback
opportunities be incorporated into the EC CS program to improve teachers’ ability to teach CS
(i.e., pedagogical content knowledge). A description of the program, including how the
instruction could take place in a virtual environment, is provided in Appendix E.
Motivation Recommendations
The analysis of the study also validated several motivation influences from the literature
review. As seen in Table 3, two motivation influences about self-efficacy were validated and
one influence about interest was validated. The influence about interest associated with teaching
CS was not validated as the study found that novice and aspiring CS teachers seeking to attend
the EC CS education program already had a well-developed interest in teaching computer
science. Similar to the knowledge influences, the gap-analysis framework (Clark & Estes, 2008)
was used to select two of the three validated influences for discussion. Only one of the self-
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 62
efficacy influences was chosen for discussion as the recommendations for both self-efficacy
influences were the same. Recommendations for addressing the chosen influences are
summarized in Table 3 and align with the theories of self-efficacy (Usher & Pajares, 2008) and
interest (Hidi & Renninger, 2006).
Table 3. Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Motivation
Influence
Validated as
a Gap?
Yes, High
Probability
or No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Self-Efficacy:
Teachers need to
believe they are
prepared to
effectively teach a
computer science
class
Y Y Self-efficacy can be
increased through
experiences where
individuals are
successful (Usher &
Pajares, 2008)
Provide opportunities for
participants to experience
success with both
learning the CS-specific
content and pedagogical
content knowledge
Self-Efficacy:
Teachers need to
believe they are
part of a
community of
computer science
educators
Y Y Self-efficacy of an
individual in a group
can be increased
through experiences
where the group
collectively
experiences success
(Usher & Pajares,
2008)
Provide opportunities for
small groups to
experience success with
both learning the CS-
specific content and
pedagogical content
knowledge
Interest: Teachers
need to have an
interest in
computer science
generally
Y Y Emerging individual
interested can be
developed through
expert models (Hidi &
Renninger, 2006)
Provide participants with
enthusiastic instructor
models for challenging
content
Interest: Teachers
need to have an
interest in
teaching computer
science
N N
Not a Priority.
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 63
Increasing collective self-efficacy. The results and findings of this study demonstrated
that all novice and aspiring CS teachers seeking to attend the EC CS education program needed
to increase their self-efficacy as related to their ability to teach a CS class. While both individual
self-efficacy and collective self-efficacy influences were validated, individual self-efficacy will
not be prioritized as mastery experiences will be considered as part of collective self-efficacy.
Instead, as can be seen in Table 3, a recommendation based on the theory of collective self-
efficacy has been chosen to close this motivation gap. Usher and Pajares (2008) noted that
mastery experiences can support the development of collective self-efficacy, which can help
individuals stay motivated when they are learning challenging content. This would indicate that
participants in the EC CS program should have the opportunity to work within groups and to
experience success within those groups.
Ryoo et al. (2016), in a study of 28 CS educators, found that the development of a
professional learning community led to increased professional growth. Teachers were able to
develop connections and learn from other CS educators, which was essential to building their
self-efficacy as they were usually the only CS teacher at their school. Similarly, in a study of 24
high school CS teachers, Yadav et al. (2016) found that many teachers were eager to engage in a
community of other CS educators to share information in the pursuit of developing their own CS
content and pedagogical content knowledge. The researchers recommended establishing a
community of CS educators as an essential component for supporting the growth of CS teachers.
This study supports the recommendation of utilizing group structures within the EC CS
education program to increase the collective self-efficacy of participants. The description of an
online community to promote collective self-efficacy is provided in Appendix E.
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 64
Shifting from emerging to well-developed interest in computer science. The results
and findings of this study demonstrated that all novice and aspiring CS teachers seeking to attend
the EC CS education program needed to develop their emerging interest in CS
content. Participants in the study, however, did demonstrate a well-developed interest in
teaching CS. Thus, as can be seen in Table 3, only a recommendation based on the theory of
interest has been selected to close motivational gap related to developing an interest in CS
generally. Hidi and Renninger (2006), in their four-stage model of interest development, noted
that individual interest can be moved from emerging to well-developed through the use of expert
models. This would indicate that participants in the EC CS program should experience training
that includes modeling of CS-specific content and pedagogy from an expert instructor to further
develop their emerging interest. Specifically, participants in the EC CS program should have the
opportunity to see instructor models when they are working through challenging tasks.
Desimone (2009) noted that effective teacher professional development programs should
incorporate expert models as part of an active learning environment. Additionally, in a study of
287 faculty members learning about a CS education program, Guzdial et al. (2013) found that
modeling of the teaching methodologies was impactful for supporting the learning of new
material as participants could clearly see how the teaching strategies could be
implemented. Developing more advanced levels of content knowledge can support an
individual’s increase in interest (Hidi & Renninger, 2006). This study supports the
recommendation that instructor modeling should be included in the EC CS program when
teachers are learning new content to move their interest in CS from emerging to well-developed.
The use of models from an experienced CS educator as part of the recommended program is
described in Appendix E.
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 65
Organization Recommendations
Two organizational influences were validated in the course of this study. Specifically,
one organizational influence associated with cultural models and one organizational influence
associated with cultural settings were validated (see Table 4). The Clark and Estes (2008) gap-
analysis framework was used to validate the organizational influences, both of which were
selected for discussion as each influence impacts the development of a CS education program at
EC. Table 4 outlines recommendations for each influence, and each influence is discussed in
further detail below, including actions aligned with the communication, alignment, and
organizational culture theories (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Table 4. Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Organization
Influence
Validated
as a Gap?
Yes, High
Probability
or No
(V, HP, N)
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Cultural Model
Influence:
The organization
needs to support
teachers in being able
to teach computer
science within their
respective schools
Y Y To accomplish
goals, there must be
clear and direct
alignment between
organizational
structures,
processes, and goals
(Clark & Estes,
2008)
Consistent and
honest
communication
between all
stakeholders is
required to build
trust and accomplish
goals (Clark &
Estes, 2008)
Create clear and
consistent methods of
communication with
teachers’ respective
schools to develop an
alignment of
expectations for
teachers participating in
the CS professional
development program
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 66
Cultural Setting
Influence: The
organization needs to
provide effective role
models during
professional
development to
demonstrate how to
learn and apply the
appropriate computer
science content
knowledge and
pedagogical content
knowledge
Y Y Organizational
culture must be
aligned with
organizational
behavior (Clark &
Estes, 2008)
Utilize an experienced
CS teacher as the
instructor to provide a
competent role model
for teachers seeking to
develop their CS-
specific content and
pedagogical content
knowledge
Aligning school culture with teachers’ desires to teach computer science.
Approximately 90% of the teachers seeking to participate in the EC CS program described their
school culture as not valuing the teaching of CS. Given that such misalignment in values can
result in teachers not being able to actually teach CS at their schools, a recommendation based on
the communication and alignment theories has been selected to close this organizational gap (see
Table 4). Clark and Estes (2008) described a need for all stakeholders to be aligned about the
structures, processes, and goals in order for those goals to be met. Additionally, all stakeholders
must be in constant and honest communication for trust to be built between stakeholders (Clark
& Estes, 2008). For participants in the EC CS education program, this indicates that there must
be clear communication about alignment between the participants, their school leadership, and
the leaders of the EC CS education program. The recommendation, therefore, is to develop clear
and direct modes of communication between each stakeholder group to align on the expectations
for participation in the EC CS education program.
Desimone (2009) described coherence between teacher and school expectations as one
essential element of effective teacher professional development. The content of what is being
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 67
taught at professional development opportunities must align with what school leaders are
expecting their teachers to learn and be able to do (Desimone, 2009). This sentiment is echoed
by Meneske (2015), who, in a review of 21 CS-specific professional development programs,
recommended that clear communication pathways be created between school leaders and
professional development providers. Most current CS-specific professional development
opportunities do not prioritize such communication and alignment, which can negatively impact
a teachers’ ability to teach CS and thus also impacts students’ learning of CS (Meneske, 2015).
These studies support the recommendation of developing clear and direct methods of
communication to support alignment between teachers, school leaders, and the EC CS education
department. Specific lines of communication are outlined in Appendix E.
Learning from an experienced computer science teacher. The results and findings of
this study demonstrated that all novice and aspiring CS teachers seeking to attend the EC CS
education program needed a competent role model from whom to learn the CS-specific content
and pedagogical content knowledge. Therefore, as can be seen in Table 4, a recommendation
rooted in the alignment of organizational culture theory has been chosen to address this
organizational gap. Clark and Estes (2008) noted that organizational culture should be aligned
with organizational behavior. Specifically, the core values held by organizations should direct
the ways in which organizational goals are achieved (Clark & Estes, 2008). For participants in
the EC CS program, this suggests that participants should be taught by current or former CS
teachers, as one of EC’s core values is that all instructors should have demonstrated competence
in the classroom. Therefore, the recommendation is to use an experienced CS teacher as the
instructor for the EC CS program.
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 68
While the empirical research specific to teacher instructors for CS-specific classrooms is
sparse, Uerz, Volman, and Kral (2017), in a review of 26 research studies about teacher educator
competencies for supporting the teaching of technology, found that teacher educators need to
have demonstrated competencies both in their content knowledge and pedagogical content
knowledge. Additionally, the researchers found that teacher educators should be able to modify
the professional development to meet the individual needs of the participants (Uerz et al., 2017).
Similarly, Desimone (2009) noted that effective teacher professional development should be led
by expert teachers who can be observed as role models for how participants can teach the content
themselves. These studies support the recommendation of utilizing experienced CS-teachers as
instructors for the EC CS education program. The development of an experienced CS educator
as an instructor is included as an internal outcome in Appendix E.
Limitations and Delimitations
In developing, conducting, and analyzing the results of this study, a number of choices
were made that ultimately impacted the outcomes and recommendations. Several limitations
exist, such as the extent to which participants were truthful in their responses and whether those
in the population were willing and able to participate in the study. Time was also a limitation,
both for the researcher and the participants involved in the study.
There were also several delimitations that came about through the intentional choices
made during the design stages of the study. A specific and limited group of participants was
chosen to provide the most relevant and applicable responses to the research questions (see
Appendix A for the sampling criteria). Similarly, a specific and limited set of questions were
designed for the interviews based upon the boundaries of the conceptual framework and semi-
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 69
structured nature of the interviews. Such decisions were made intentionally to limit the scope of
this study to best inform the development of a CS education program at EC.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to better understand the perceptions and experiences of
novice and aspiring CS teachers in the pursuit of designing a relevant and targeted CS education
program for EC. The study utilized the Clark and Estes (2008) Gap Analysis framework to
consider the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that impact novice and
aspiring CS teachers, in particular those who had demonstrated an interest in attending an EC CS
education program. A targeted group of nine participants were interviewed, and their results on
a content knowledge pre-test were used to verify their perceptions of their CS knowledge.
The study revealed that novice and aspiring CS teachers seeking to attend an EC CS
education program needed to develop both their CS content knowledge and PCK. To support
motivation, levels of individual and collective self-efficacy needed to be increased, along with
developing teachers’ interest in CS generally. It was also revealed that there is a need to provide
clear alignment between a participant’s desire to teach CS and their school culture while also
providing participants with an experienced CS teacher as their instructor during professional
development.
Based on the findings, recommendations were made to address the knowledge,
motivation, and organization needs of novice and aspiring CS teachers through the design of a
series of online professional development trainings at EC. Given the challenging nature of
developing CS-specific content knowledge and PCK, the proposed trainings would be short and
only focus on germane information. Additionally, participants should have the opportunity to
have mastery experiences both individually and with small groups as they develop a sense of
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 70
community with their colleagues. Participants in the program would also have access to an
experienced CS teacher as an instructor to provide continuous feedback and act as a clear role
model. The proposed program would also include the development of lines of communication
between EC, school leaders, and participants in order to ensure alignment on expectations and
goals.
Finally, an evaluation plan for the implementation of the proposed program was
developed utilizing the New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The
plan considers four stages, from the highest-level results to the participants’ reactions to the
training. A blended evaluation instrument was developed to gather data both immediately after
the conclusion of the training and several months later once participants were teaching CS in
their schools and could report on results.
The development of a CS education program would drive EC toward its mission of
developing in all students the academic knowledge and skills needed for college and career. As
access to CS education continues to expand, EC has the opportunity to develop a research-based
program to increase the number of prepared CS teachers offering CS classes to all students. The
time is right for EC to truly support teachers capable of preparing students ready for the 21
st
century.
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 71
Appendix A: Participating Stakeholders with Sampling Criteria
for Interviews
Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholder population of focus for the study was novice and aspiring computer
science (CS) teachers seeking to participate in an EC CS education program. Specifically, the
participants in the study had chosen to participate in the current EC CS education program
during the spring of 2019. Participants in the study were interviewed to better understand their
knowledge and motivation needs along with how those needs interact with the organizational
influences of EC. The participants in the study provided insights to make recommendations for
an EC CS education program through their specific perspectives on CS and the teaching of CS.
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
In-service teachers. The first criterion was for the participants to be currently working
as teachers in public or public charter schools. In-service teachers, as opposed to pre-service
teachers, were able to provide better insights into the motivational influences, as they had an
understanding of both the interest and self-efficacy needs related to teaching.
Novice or aspiring computer science teachers. The second criterion was for the
participants to be novice or aspiring CS teachers, as opposed to teachers uninterested in teaching
CS. Novice and aspiring CS teachers were able to answer questions related to the knowledge
influences, as they had a better understanding of the content and pedagogical content required to
teach CS. Novice and aspiring CS teachers were also better able to address the research question
related to potential solutions, as they had considered routes to teaching CS prior to the study.
Seeking to enroll in an Equity College computer science education program. The
third criterion was for participants to be seeking to enroll in an EC CS program. Such teachers
represented the ideal population for a future EC CS education program as they were able to
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 72
speak to the interactions between EC organizational culture and their knowledge and motivation
needs. Additionally, such teachers had already demonstrated an interest in attending a program
specific to EC, and thus were able to provide relevant and compelling ideas for the development
of a CS education at EC.
Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
Given the qualitative nature of this study, purposeful sampling was employed to gather
the most insightful data about the needs of novice and aspiring CS teachers seeking to participate
in an EC CS education program. Specifically, nonprobability purposeful sampling was used as
the research was seeking to learn from a specific group of individuals who had the best
understanding of the given situation (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Additionally, convenience
sampling, a type of purposeful sampling, was used based on the limited time to conduct the
interviews (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Individuals who met the criterion above were considered
to be the most informed about the research being conducted and thus were asked to participate in
the study.
Eighteen individuals met the criterion for participating in the survey, and each of the
individuals was contacted personally via email by the researcher with an invitation to participate.
The invitation included detailed information about the study and how the information gathered
from the study would be used. Nine of the eighteen individuals volunteered to participate, and
were sent follow-up emails to confirm the date, time, and location for the interviews. While each
of the participants in the study had chosen to participate in the current EC CS education program,
none of them were managed by or instructed by the researcher.
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 73
Appendix B: Protocols
Section 1: Welcome
• Thank you so much for meeting with me today! I’m very excited to learn from you.
• As we get started, I’d like to get your permission for us to record our conversation.
Everything will be kept confidential, and the recording will allow me to go back to review
our conversation
Section 2: Demographics
I’d love to start with a few questions about your teaching experience.
1. For how long have you been teaching?
2. What grades have you taught and what grade are you currently teaching?
3. Similarly, what content areas have you taught and what content area are you currently
teaching?
We’re also learning how and why participants came to us.
4. How did you learn about the program? (O)
5. Why are you interested in participating in the program? (M)
1. If necessary, were there any features about the program that made it appealing to
you?
6. Did anyone at your school recommend you take the program? (O)
Section 3: Interest and Content Knowledge
Great! So, my next set of questions are related to your experiences and understanding of
computer science in general. We’ll talk about teaching computer science in a few minutes.
7. From your perspective, what is computer science? (K-D)
8. How would you describe your knowledge of computer science? (K-D)
a. If necessary, how did you develop this knowledge?
b. If a program is noted, which program? How was your experience?
9. What interests you about computer science? (M)
Let’s transition to talk about teaching computer science?
10. What is your experience in teaching computer science? (K-P)
11. How would you describe your knowledge of how to teach computer science? (K-P)
12. What interests you about teaching computer science? (M)
Section 4: Classes
Let’s talk a little about your current class.
13. How would you describe the class(es) that you current teach? (O)
a. What are the defining characteristics?
b. What interests you in teaching your current class?
14. How would your class look different if you were teaching computer science? (O)
c. Does your interest in teaching computer science feel different from your current
class?
15. What would need to happen to teach computer science? (O)
d. Would there be any limiting factors?
e. Would resources be a limiting factor?
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 74
16. Would buy-in from your school leadership be a limiting factor? (O)
Section 5: Professional Development
This last section is focused on professional development, as we are seeking to learn how to
provide relevant and appropriate PD. Imagine for a minute that you are able to attend the ideal
computer science PD to prepare you to teach computer science.
17. What would you be learning? (M)
18. Who would be attending the PD with you? (M)
19. Describe your ideal PD instructor. (O)
20. Would you be learning the computer science content first and then how to teach it, or
would you want to learn the content and the teaching techniques at the same time? (K)
21. Are you seeking to teach a stand-alone CS class? Or do you want to integrate CS into
your current class? (O)
a. Why?
Section 6: Closing
That brings us to the end of the interview.
22. Is there anything we didn’t get a chance to discuss?
As I mentioned in my email, we are seeking to learn more about participants in the CS program.
We are interested in learning more about how participants self-identify in terms of race and
gender.
23. Would you feel comfortable sharing that information?
a. If necessary, how do you identify in terms of race? In terms of gender?
24. And finally, in an effort to keep your identity confidential, we’ll be using pseudonyms for
the study. Is there a pseudonym you’d like me to use, or should I choose one for you?
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 75
Appendix C: Credibility and Trustworthiness
When conducting qualitative research, the researcher must consider how to increase the
credibility and trustworthiness of the study (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). While a
number of methods are available, three specific strategies were incorporated to increase the
credibility and trustworthiness of this study in its design, implementation, and analysis:
triangulation, member checks, and reflexivity.
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) describe triangulation as a common strategy used to increase
credibility by examining the alignment between perception and reality. Triangulation, in
essence, is the use of multiple methods or sources to compare the data being collected (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016). In this study, both the use of multiple methods and multiple sources were
utilized to triangulate the data. First, multiple methods, specifically document analysis, was used
to compare statements made in the interviews about the knowledge needs for novice and aspiring
CS teachers to participants’ performance on a content knowledge pre-test. Triangulation also
occurred through the use of multiple sources, as the same or similar questions were asked of each
of the participants.
Member checks, also known as respondent validation, also served to increase the
credibility of the study by returning to participants to verify the data being collected (Maxwell,
2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Specifically, the researcher sought to verify the findings and
interpretations being made with several different participants at various points during the data
collection process. As Maxwell (2013) noted, member checks allowed the researcher to consider
whether there is evidence to contradict the conclusions being made.
Reflexivity was a final strategy used to increase the trustworthiness of the study as the
researcher consistently considered how his biases and expectations were impacting the data
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 76
collection (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Specifically, the researcher journaled
reflections after each interview focused on how the line of questioning impacted the participants’
responses. The purpose of the journaling was not to determine how to eliminate the researcher’s
bias and expectations, but rather, as Maxwell (2013) noted, to understand the impact.
Increasing the credibility and trustworthiness of a qualitative study can be accomplished
through the use of triangulation, member checks, and reflexivity. These strategies were used
consistently and methodologically to ensure that the data could be trusted.
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 77
Appendix D: Ethics
It is essential for any researcher to consider their ethical responsibilities, especially with
regards to those individuals and communities participating in their study (Glesne, 2011). In the
following paragraphs, the approach for how the ethical responsibilities of the researcher were
met is described, including a description of informed consent emails, the role of the researcher,
and a discussion of the assumptions and biases held by the researcher.
The novice and aspiring computer science (CS) teachers that participated in this study
were asked to provide informed consent via email at the beginning of the study. According to
Glesne (2011), obtaining informed consent is essential for individuals to know that their
participation in the study is voluntary and that they can remove themselves from the study at any
time if they so choose. The informed consent email made clear that participation in the study
was completely voluntary and also provided information about how teachers’ data was being
kept confidential. In addition to the consent email, participating teachers were asked for their
consent to have the interviews recorded at the start of the interview (the recordings were kept in
a password-protected folder on the researcher’s computer).
Ethical responsibilities also included explicitly addressing the role the researcher was
taking in the study so as to avoid any potential confusion or feelings of pressure to engage in the
research. Given that participants were seeking to participate in the current EC CS education
program, the researcher clearly described how his role as the Director of CS Education at EC
was different from his role as a researcher seeking to learn about the knowledge and motivational
needs of the participating teachers. Such an explicit differentiation in roles was necessary to
avoid participants feeling like they were being deceived by participating and was included in the
informed consent email (Glesne, 2011). Additionally, the researcher was explicit about his
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 78
desire to hear the participants’ voices. Glesne (2011) noted that reciprocity can be provided by
communicating the value of the participants’ opinions and by explicitly describing the
significance of their contributions to the study. The researcher for this study clearly articulated
how participants’ views were to be used to shape the future of the EC CS education program,
both in the informed consent email and verbally during the interview.
Finally, it was essential for the researcher to consider the assumptions and biases that he
has as a result of his race, gender, and educational background. To begin, the researcher did not
simply attempt to be unbiased, as this could have resulted in the “objectification of others”
(Glesne, 2011, p. 162). Instead, the researcher thought carefully about how being white and
male could impact the recruitment and interviewing of participants. Weiss (1994) noted that the
researcher should focus on the opinions of the participants and avoid interjecting personal stories
or anecdotes. This approach allowed the researcher to potentially avoid being seen as an
authority figure because of his gender and race and instead demonstrated that the value of the
conversation came from the participant. Additionally, the researcher considered how his
knowledge of the field of CS education directed the construction of his questioning. Given that
the participants for the study were selectively chosen because they are novice or aspiring CS
teachers, the researcher piloted his questions to assure that the language of the questions did not
make assumptions about the content or pedagogical content knowledge of the participants.
The act of researching is a privilege and requires the researcher to carefully consider the
ethical responsibilities of his work. This included gaining informed consent prior to the start of
the interviews, explicitly communicating the role of the researcher, and structuring questions to
work against the researcher’s potential biases and assumptions.
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 79
Appendix E: Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
The framework used to develop an integrated implementation and evaluation plan is the
New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The New World Kirkpatrick
Model includes four levels of evaluation, starting with the highest level of evaluation in Level
Four: Results. Level Four considers the extent to which the most important results were
achieved via specific training, support, and accountability measures. Level Four is considered
first when designing an implementation and evaluation plan, followed by Level Three: Behavior.
Level Three considers the extent to which participants in the training are able to transfer the
knowledge and skills to their actual work after they have completed the training. Once the key
behaviors and the structures that support those behaviors have been considered, the plan for
Level Two: Learning is created. Level Two considers the extent to which participants have
learned the knowledge and skills from the training in addition to the participants’ beliefs about
the extent to which they can implement their new training in the workplace. Finally, the plan for
Level One: Reaction is developed, which measures the level of engagement and enthusiasm from
participants in the training (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Organizational Purpose, Needs, and Expectations
Equity College’s (EC) mission is to prepare teachers and school leaders capable of
developing in all PK-12 students the academic and character knowledge and skills to be
successful in college and career. To fulfill this mission, leadership at EC (pseudonym) seeks to
develop a computer science (CS) education program for novice and aspiring CS teachers across
the country. As a result, a needs assessment of teachers seeking to participate in a current
iteration of EC’s CS professional development program was conducted. This assessment was
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 80
conducted to better understand the knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers that such
teachers face as they work to teach CS at their respective schools.
While there are a number of stakeholders to consider, this study specifically focused on
novice and aspiring CS teachers seeking to participate in the current EC CS program. The
stakeholder group goal, therefore, is to teach a CS-specific class or integrate CS into another
class by the summer of 2020. Accomplishing this goal would support EC’s mission by
supporting the development of CS knowledge and skills in students across the country who are
taught by participants in the EC CS program.
Suggested recommendations for the development of a CS education program at EC
include a series of trainings focusing on CS-specific content and pedagogical content
knowledge. The short and frequent series of trainings will incorporate feedback cycles and
small-group interactions to build a sense of community while also providing access to an
experienced CS teacher as an instructor. Lines of direct communication between EC, teachers
seeking to participate in the EC CS education program, and school leadership are also
recommended to support the alignment of goals between all stakeholders.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
In considering the extent to which end goals were met as a result of training, it is
important to consider and measure the intermediate steps taken toward those end goals
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) described these
intermediate steps as leading indicators that demonstrate progress made toward both internal and
external outcomes. As seen in Table 5, internal and external outcomes are described by the
metrics and methods used to measure progress toward the outcomes.
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 81
Table 5. Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
Increased number of novice and
aspiring CS teachers participating
in EC CS education programs
The number of teachers
enrolling in each
subsequent iteration of the
EC CS education program
Request student enrollment
from student services each
semester
Increased participant satisfaction
with the EC CS education
programs
Net promoter score of EC
CS professional
development participants
Data collected via survey at
the conclusion of an EC CS
education program
Increased number of partnerships
with specific schools, school
networks, and school districts
seeking to develop CS-capable
teachers
The number of agreements
with partners to provide
CS education training to
their teachers
Request memorandum of
understanding data from
finance each semester
Increased school leader
satisfaction with the EC CS
education programs
Net promoter score of
school leaders who had
teachers participate in an
EC CS program
Requests for validation
from school leaders who
had teachers participate in
an EC CS program
Internal Outcomes
Increased engagement of an
experienced CS educator as the
instructor for the training
The number of hours
worked by the instructor
The number of
professional development
trainings taught by the
instructor
Data collected via survey
from instructor on a bi-
quarterly basis
Increased engagement and
support from EC leadership for
the development and expansion
of CS-specific professional
development
The amount of funding
allocated to the CS
department by EC
Data collected via survey
from EC academic
programs leaders each
semester
Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. To support the results described in Level Four, it is essential that
those engaged in training receive ongoing support and accountability (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick,
2016). Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) noted that plans for such support and accountability
are designed in Level Three, where critical behaviors clearly describe the necessary steps that
must occur between learning and outcomes. To move from learning to achieving the desired
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 82
outcomes, novice and aspiring CS teachers participating in an EC CS education program will
need to engage in critical behaviors. Specifically, as seen in Table 6, the novice and aspiring CS
teachers will need to create and share a plan for teaching and assessing CS in their specific
classes with both their school leadership and EC. Teachers will also need to teach a CS class or
integrate CS into their current classes and assess student growth in CS knowledge and skills.
Table 6. Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing
1. Teachers will create
and share a plan for
teaching and assessing
CS with their school
leadership and the EC
CS department
Quality of
teaching and
assessment plan
The EC CS department
will assess the quality
of the teaching and
assessment plan
utilizing a shared
planning rubric
One month prior to
the start of the school
year and then
reviewed one month
prior to the second
semester
2. Teachers will teach a
CS class or integrate CS
into their current classes
Quality of CS
teaching
The EC CS department
will assess the quality
of the teaching via
video review of one
class utilizing a shared
instruction rubric
Quarterly
3. Teachers will
demonstrate student
growth in CS
knowledge and skills
Student growth
scores on
school-specific
assessments
The EC CS department
will review growth
scores provided by
school leadership
After school-specific
assessments
following each unit of
study
Required drivers. To support the actualization of critical behaviors, an integrated set of
required drivers must be developed that provide both support and accountability (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). To support novice and aspiring CS teachers in meeting their goal,
opportunities for refreshing content and pedagogical content knowledge should be offered after
the formal EC CS education professional development program has concluded. Additionally, in
an effort to continuously build self-efficacy and interest, teachers should have the opportunity to
continue working with and learning from their peers in the EC CS education program via an
online community of practice and a monthly alumni newsletter. Finally, teachers should be
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 83
supported in aligning their planning, teaching, and assessing of CS with their school leadership
to leverage existing reward, encouragement, and accountability systems. The required drivers,
along with the associated timing and critical behaviors, are outlined in Table 7.
Table 7. Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical
Behaviors
Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing
Provide participants with the opportunity to attend targeted
refresher trainings
Quarterly 1, 2, 3
Provide participants with timely reminders via an alumni
newsletter of content-specific action steps once teaching
Monthly 1, 2, 3
Create an online community of practice where teachers can
continue to communicate with participants from the EC CS
education program
Ongoing 2, 3
Encouraging
Support the alignment of CS instruction with school-specific
instructional goals
Ongoing 2, 3
Encourage peer mentoring via the online community of
practice
Ongoing 2, 3
Rewarding
Support the alignment of teaching and assessing plans to
school-specific reward systems (e.g., stipends for additional
teaching responsibilities)
Ongoing 1
Create an alumni newsletter to highlight achievements by
participants from the EC CS education program
Monthly 1, 2, 3
Monitoring
Submission of teaching and assessment plans, classroom
footage, and student growth scores to EC and school
leadership
Ongoing 1, 2, 3
Encourage self-accountability utilizing existing coaching
structures with school leadership
Weekly 1, 2, 3
Organizational support. To successfully implement the required drivers, organizational
support for novice and aspiring CS teachers will be essential. Specifically, direct lines of
communication will need to be developed between EC, the teachers seeking to participate in the
EC CS education program, and school leaders to ensure that the goals of the teachers align with
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 84
the culture of the school. Such lines of communication must be developed prior to teachers
engaging in the EC CS education program to best support alignment between the training offered
by EC and the goals of the schools partnering with EC. Specifically, formal partnerships would
be established during the development phase of the program to allow for alignment in content,
teaching outcomes, and post-training support.
Specific individuals at both EC (i.e., the director of the CS department) and the schools,
networks, or districts (e.g., a director of CS) would be designated to communicate frequently
(i.e., monthly) about alignment before, during, and after the series of training is
implemented. Specifically, these individuals would work together to align content, identify and
recruit potential participants, and then support the participants after the training is completed.
They would also develop and implement the shared rubrics described in Table 5 and be
responsible for receiving and reviewing the teaching and assessment plans, classroom footage,
and student growth scores described in Table 6.
Communication would happen both via email and phone, starting at first with
representatives from EC and school leadership and then also including the teachers seeking to
participate in the program. The communication lines would be used to clearly delineate and gain
consensus on expectations for all stakeholders, including what would be expected of participants
once they complete the program (e.g., teaching a CS class the following year). The development
and continuation of the partnership would be dependent on all stakeholders agreeing to engage in
both the training and the post-training support and accountability measures.
In addition to supporting the alignment of expectations, EC will also be responsible for
hiring and supporting an instructor to act as a role model for the participants in the program. The
instructor will need to demonstrate a track record of success as a CS educator in addition to a
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 85
deep content knowledge background. For example, the instructor would need to be able to
articulate a variety of methods for the teaching of specific CS content to PK-12 students,
describe how to identify and address common student misconceptions, and explain how to
develop rubrics for assessing student performance. The instructor would also need to
demonstrate fluency with a variety of programming languages along with up-to-date knowledge
of the various teaching tools available for teaching PK-12 students. Finally, once hired, EC
would need to support the instructor with aligning their instructional methods to the expectations
shared by EC, the partner schools, and the participants in the EC CS education program.
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. Once novice and aspiring CS teachers have completed the EC CS
education program, they should be able to:
1. Explain and create basic computer programs that utilize variables, loops, conditionals,
and functions (D)
2. Identify and describe a variety of resources for learning and teaching CS (D)
3. Adapt or create scaffolded challenge sets for students that include anticipated
misconceptions and misunderstandings (P)
4. Create rubrics to assess student understanding of programming fundamentals (P)
5. Develop an action plan for how they will teach and assess student growth in a stand-alone
CS class or integrate CS into their current class (P)
6. Confidently lead instruction for a stand-alone CS class or an integrated CS class
(Confidence)
7. Collaborate with other CS educators to share resources and problem-solve (Self-Efficacy)
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 86
8. Describe an interest in computer science topics in general, including technological
innovations (Interest)
Program. Based on the needs analysis and recommendations, a series of professional
development trainings focused on developing the content knowledge and pedagogical content
knowledge of novice and aspiring CS teachers should be developed by EC. The program, which
should have a duration of at least 50 hours spanning at least one semester, should be delivered
completely online to allow for teachers to learn and develop community with peers from across
the country. Brief (e.g., two-hour) and frequent synchronous sessions should be created to allow
teachers to learn from an experienced CS instructor face-to-face while also providing time for
teachers to work collaboratively in small groups. Asynchronous components should also be
developed to provide additional practice opportunities for participants’ programming and
pedagogical skills. Both the synchronous and asynchronous components of the professional
development should include frequent opportunities for feedback both from the instructor and
peers via discussions and quizzes.
Each of the short sessions should allow teachers to experience success, both individually
and collectively. The sessions will be developed to include a sequence of learning limited
amounts of new and challenging material followed by practice opportunities with
feedback. Such a design should allow participants to increase their understanding of the material
based on information processing theory (Mayer, 2011), rather than attempting to learn more
content without practice or feedback. Additionally, when the teachers are learning new content,
they will be exposed to expert models from the instructor. Models will be presented both for the
CS content (e.g., worked examples of problems) and the teaching of CS (e.g., how to introduce a
new CS concept to students). Given that both the CS content and teaching strategies will be new
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 87
and challenging, such models will allow teachers to move from emerging to well-developed
individual interest, as described by Hidi and Renninger’s (2006) four-stage model of interest
development. Developing participants’ interest in the challenging CS content will be essential
for building and maintaining their motivation through the extended series of professional
development. In order for the instructor to be able to implement such expert models, they will
need have a teaching background and be able to demonstrate clear and comprehensive
knowledge of the content.
EC should also seek to develop partnerships with schools, school networks, and school
districts. Partnerships, such as those outlined above, would support alignment between all
stakeholders. Such alignment, and the clear communication to develop the alignment, is
described by Clark and Estes (2008) as essential for goals to be met. Consistent communication
about alignment will also allow for trust to be built between each stakeholder (Clark & Estes,
2008). The development of trust will allow participants to feel that their time was well spent by
attending the training, will allow school partners to feel like they are able to confidently offer a
CS program at their schools, and will allow EC to drive toward its mission of developing
prepared educators for all academic content.
Evaluation of the components of learning. Participants of the training should be
evaluated not only on whether they learned the content and developed the skills but also on
whether they believe the training was important and can be applied in their own contexts
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Therefore, participants completing the EC CS education
program should be able to articulate why learning about CS is important and their commitment
to teaching CS in their own schools in addition to demonstrating their proficiency with CS-
specific content and pedagogical content knowledge. Table 8 outlines the methods used for
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 88
evaluating the various components of the proposed professional development and when the
methods would occur.
Table 8. Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program.
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Pre- and post-tests of knowledge of
programming basics, including definitions
Before and after the professional
development series
Quizzes on knowledge of programming basics Weekly at the start of synchronous
sessions
Pre- and post-tests of knowledge of CS-specific
pedagogical knowledge, including multiple
representations and common student
misconceptions
Before and after the professional
development series
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
Teachers will develop student-facing challenge
sets for discrete programming skills that include
student misconceptions and rubrics
Periodically during the professional
development series, increasing in
frequency once teachers have developed
baseline procedural skills
Teachers will develop student-facing projects for
integrating various programming skills that
include student misconceptions and rubrics
Periodically during the professional
development series, increasing in
frequency once teachers have developed
baseline procedural skills
Small group peer-teaching to simulate classroom
instruction
Periodically during the professional
development series, increasing in
frequency once teachers have developed
baseline procedural skills
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Items on pre- and post- surveys of participants’
self-perceptions related to interest in CS
generally and the teaching of CS
Before and after the professional
development series
Small and whole group discussions that require
teachers to reflect on the relevance of the content
they are learning
Weekly during synchronous sessions
Online forum contributions reflecting teachers’
reactions to readings associated with the impact
of teaching CS to all students
Weekly during asynchronous sessions
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Items on pre- and post- surveys of participants’
self-perceptions related to confidence with CS-
specific content knowledge and pedagogical
content knowledge
Before and after the professional
development series
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 89
Small and whole group discussions that require
teachers to reflect on areas of strength and areas
of growth
Weekly during synchronous sessions
Online forum contributions reflecting teachers’
reactions to videos of teachers implementing
similar lessons to a diverse group of students
Weekly during asynchronous sessions
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Action plan for teaching and assessing CS At the conclusion of the series of
professional development and before the
start of the school year
Online forums reflecting teachers’ progress in
implementing their action plan in their specific
schools
Quarterly once teachers are implementing
their plans in their schools
Level 1: Reaction
Level One measures the extent to which participants of a training found the experience to
be engaging, relevant, and enjoyable (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick (2016) noted that Level One data should be measured formatively and kept simple to
maximize the use of resources at other levels. Thus, as can be seen in Table 9, feedback surveys,
completion rates, attendance, and instructor observations will be used to measure reactions to the
program.
Table 9. Components to Measure Reactions to the Program.
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Completion of asynchronous activities During the professional development series
Attendance at synchronous sessions During synchronous sessions
Instructor observation of engagement During synchronous sessions
Relevance
Session feedback survey After each of the synchronous sessions
Program feedback survey Once the school year has started
Customer Satisfaction
Session feedback survey After each of the synchronous sessions
Program feedback survey Once the school year has started
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 90
Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the program implementation. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick
(2016) recommended the use of a blended evaluation approach that includes questions related to
Level One and Level Two directly after the training has been implemented. As such, four items
have been developed to assess participants’ reactions and learning from the training (see
Appendix G). Two of the items focus on Level One, including an item aligned to the
organizational recommendation of aligning school culture to a teachers’ desire to teach CS. The
second Level One item demonstrates the participants’ level of satisfaction and is a required
question on any EC post-training survey. The additional two items focus on Level Two, with
one item aligning to the motivational recommendation related to self-efficacy. The second Level
Two item illustrates the commitment of the participants to applying their learning once they are
back in the classroom.
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. Evaluation of the training
should also occur once participants have had the opportunity to apply what they have learned and
see results (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) recommended
assessing at all four levels of the New World Kirkpatrick Model once all the required drivers
have been utilized and participants have been able to transfer their learning from the training. As
a result, eight items have been developed for assessing participants’ reactions, learning, behavior,
and results several months into the school year following the EC CS education program (see
Appendix H).
Two items focus on Level One, specifically considering the relevance of the EC CS
education program and the motivation recommendation of shifting from emerging to well-
developed interest in CS. Two items are also focused on Level Two and are targeted at the
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 91
knowledge recommendation associated with developing CS-specific pedagogical knowledge.
An additional two items are directly aligned to Level Three, with both items addressing critical
behaviors aligned with the transfer of learning from the EC CS education program. The final
two items focus on Level Four, with both items targeted at desired external outcomes.
Data Analysis and Reporting
While a significant amount of data can be collected, analyzed, and presented, care should
be taken to decide which findings are the most important and useful to the stakeholders
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Recognizing that teachers, school leaders, and EC leadership
ultimately value PK-12 student growth and achievement above all else, a dashboard will be
created that specifically considers progress toward the critical behaviors outlined in Table 5. An
example of a dashboard created to share with EC leadership can be seen in Appendix I. The
dashboard is designed to demonstrate the impact on PK-12 students, while also indicating the
extent to which teachers participating in the EC CS education program are in alignment with
their school leadership and teaching CS. Given that strong reports often contain both qualitative
and quantitative information (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016), the dashboard includes
quantitative data related to alignment and academic growth in addition to qualitative comments
from program alumni. Similar dashboards will be created for leaders at schools, school
networks, and school districts. A comparable system will also be developed to demonstrate
progress for Level One and Level Two.
Summary
The New World Kirkpatrick Model was utilized to develop a plan for evaluating an
innovative approach to developing a CS education program at EC. The model includes four
levels of evaluation, including results, behavior, learning, and reaction, and is used immediately
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 92
after the program is completed and several months later once participants have been able to
apply their learning and see results (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The blended-evaluation
approach will allow leadership both at EC and at schools to gauge progress toward the
stakeholder goal of teaching CS and the organizational goal of supporting the academic
development of students needed for college and career. Leadership will be able to recognize the
impact of the professional development program not only on teacher learning but also on their
ability to transfer that learning to their own schools and students through the monitoring and
accountability aspects of the New World Kirkpatrick Model.
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 93
Appendix G: Immediate Evaluation Instrument
Survey Items (utilizing an 11-point Likert scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree)
Level One: Reaction
1. I am clear about what is expected of me once I get back to my school.
2. I would recommend this program to other teachers seeking to learn and teach computer
science.
Level Two: Learning
1. I feel confident about applying what I have learned once I start teaching a stand-alone
computer science class or integrating computer science principles into my current class.
2. I am committed to applying what I have learned to my teaching.
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 94
Appendix H: Blended Evaluation Instrument
Survey Items (utilizing an 11-point Likert scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree)
Level One: Reaction
1. I have been able to use what I learned during the Equity College computer science
education program.
2. Looking back, taking the Equity College computer science education program developed
my interest in computer science.
Level Two: Learning
1. I have been able to design scaffolded challenge sets for my students.
2. I have been able to address common computer science misconceptions with my students.
Level Three: Behavior
1. I have successfully begun teaching a stand-alone computer science class or integrated
computer science principles into my current class.
2. My school leader and I are aligned on how I will teach and assess my students.
Level Four: Results
1. My participation in the Equity College computer science program has positively
impacted my students.
2. My school leader is satisfied with my development as a result of attending the Equity
College computer science education program.
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 95
Appendix I: Data Analysis Dashboard
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 96
References
Adrion, R., Fall, R., Ericson, B., & Guzdial, M. (2016). Broadening access to computing
education state by state. Communications of the ACM, 59(2), 32-34. doi:
10.1145/2856455
Armoni, M. (2011). Looking at secondary teacher preparation through the lens of computer
science. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 11(4), 38. doi:
10.1145/2048931.2048934
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78.
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: 10.1145/1929887.1929905
Benda, K., Bruckman, A., & Guzdial, M. (2012). When life and learning do not fit: Challenges
of workload and communication in introductory computer science online. ACM
Transactions on Computing Education, 12(4). doi: 10.1145/2382564.2382567
Bender, E., Hubwieser, P., Schaper, N., Margaritis, M., Berges, M., Ohrndorf, L…. & Schubert,
S. (2015). Towards a competency model for teaching computer science. Peabody Journal
of Education, 90(4), 519-532. doi: 10.1080/0161956X.2015.1068082
Bender, E., Schaper, N., Caspersen, M.E., Margaritis, M., & Hubwieser, P. (2016). Identifying
and formulating teachers’ beliefs and motivational orientations for computer science
teacher education. Studies in Higher Education, 41(11), 1958-1973. doi:
10.1080/03075079.2015.1004233
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 97
Beth, B., Lin, C., & Veletsianos, G. (2015). Training a diverse computer science teacher
population. ACM Inroads 6(4), 94-97. doi: 10.1145/2829978
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research
Journal, 9(2), 27-40. doi: 10.3316/QRJ0902027
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2018). Computer and information technology occupations. Retrieved
from https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/home.htm
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
CollegeBoard. (2018). National report [data file]. Retrieved from
https://research.collegeboard.org/programs/ap/data/participation/ap-2018
Colorado Department of Education. (2018). Computer science standards. Retrieved from
https://www.cde.state.co.us/coscience/cs-standards
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Cutts, Q., Robertson, J., Donaldson, P., & O’Donnell, L. (2017). An evaluation of a professional
learning network for computer science teachers. Computer Science Education, 27(1), 30-
53. doi: 10.1080/08993408.2017.1315958
Desimone, L.M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development:
Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181-199.
doi: 10.3102/0013189X08331140
Ericson, B., Adrion, W. R., Fall, R. & Guzdial, M. (2016). State-based progress towards
computer science for all. ACM Inroads, 7(4), 57-60. doi: 10.1145/2994607
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 98
Ericson, B., Guzdial, M., Morrison, B., Parker, M., Moldavan, M. & Surasani, L. (2015). An e-
book for teachers learning CS principles. ACM Inroads, 6(4), 84-86. doi:
10.1145/2829976
Franklin, D. (2015). Putting the computer science in computing education research.
Communications of the ACM, 58(2), 34-36. doi: 10.1145/2700376
Gal-Ezer, J. & Stephenson, C. (2010). Computer science teacher preparation is critical. ACM
Inroads, 1(1), 61-66. doi: 10.1145/1721933.1721953
Gal-Ezer, J. & Stephenson, C. (2014). A tale of two countries: success and challenges in k-12
computer science education in Israel and the United States. ACM Transactions on
Computing Education, 14(2), 8. doi: 10.1145/2602483
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45–56.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson.
Goode, J. (2007). If you build teachers, will students come? The role of teachers in broadening
computer science learning for urban youth. Journal of Educational Computing Research,
36(1), 65-88. doi: 10.2190/2102-5G77-QL77-5506
Google. (2016). Trends in the state of computer Science in U.S. K-12 schools [PDF file].
Retrieved from: http://services.google.com/fh/files/misc/trends-in-the-state-of-computer
science-report.pdf
Grover, S. & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in k–12: A review of the state of the field.
Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38-43. doi: 10.3102/0013189X12463051
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 99
Guzdial, M. (2016). Bring computer science to U.S. schools, state by state. Communications of
the ACM, 59(5), 24-25. doi: 10.1145/2898963
Guzdial, M., Ericson, B., McKlin, T., & Engelman, S. (2013). Georgia computes! An
intervention in a U.S. state, with formal and informal education in a policy context. ACM
Transactions on Computing Education, 14(2), 1-29. doi: 10.1145/2602488
Hazzan, O., Gal-Ezer, J., & Ragonis, N. (2010). How to establish a computer science teacher
preparation program at your university? The ECSTPP workshop. ACM Inroads, 1(1), 35-
39. doi: 10.1145/1721933.1721949
Hidi, S. & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational
Psychologist, 41(2), 111-127. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep4102_4
K-12 Computer Science Framework. (n.d.). Defining computer science. Retrieved from
https://k12cs.org/defining-computer-science/
Kirkpatrick, J. D. & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
Alexandria, VA: ATD Press.
Krathwohl, D.R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice,
41(4), 212-218. doi: 10.1207/s1543042tip4104_2
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research
(4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Lang, K., Galanos, R., Goode, J., Seehorn, D., Trees, F., Phillips, P. & Stephenson, C. (2013).
Bugs in the system: Computer science teacher certification in the U.S. Retrieved from
https://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.csteachers.org/resource/resmgr/
CSTA_BugsInTheSystem.pdf
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 100
Mason, R. & Cooper, G. (2013). Mindstorms robots and the application of cognitive load theory
in introductory programming. Computer Science Education, 23(4), 296-314. doi: 10.1080
/08993408.2013.847152
Master., A., Cheryan, S., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2016). Computing whether she belongs: Stereotypes
undermine girls’ interest and sense of belonging in computer science. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 108(3), 424-437. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/edu0000061
Mattern, K. D., Shaw, E. J., & Ewing, M. (2011). Advanced placement exam participation: Is AP
exam participation and performance related to choice of college major? Research report
no. 2011-6. College Board. Retrieved from https://research.collegeboard.org/sites/
default/files/publications/2012/7/researchreport-2011-6-ap-participation-performance-
major-choice.pdf
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Mayer, R.E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Meneske, M. (2015). Computer science teacher professional development in the United States: A
review of studies published between 2004 and 2014. Computer Science Education, 25(4),
325-350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2015.1111645
Merriam, S. B. & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks:
SAGE Publications.
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 101
Qian, Y., Hambrusch, S., Yadav, A., & Gretter, S. (2018). Who needs what: Recommendations
for designing effective online professional development for computer science teachers.
Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 50(2), 164-181. doi: 10.1080/
15391523.2018.1433565
Robinson, A., Perez-Quiñones, M. A., & Scales, G. (2016). African-American middle school
girls: Influences on attitudes toward computer science. Computing in Science &
Engineering, 18(3), 14-23. doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2016.43
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Ryoo, J., Goode, J., & Margolis, J. (2016). It takes a village: Supporting inquiry- and equity-
oriented computer science pedagogy through a professional learning community.
Computer Science Education, 25(4), 351-370.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2015.1130952
Schraw, G., Flowerday, T., & Lehman, S. (2001). Increasing situational interest in the classroom.
Educational Psychology Review, 13(3), 211-224. doi: 1040-726X/01/0900-0211
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
Researcher, 15(2), 4-14. https://doi-org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.3102/0013189X015002004
Smith, S. (2016). Computer science for all. Retrieved from:
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2016/01/30/computer-science-all
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 102
Tucker, A., Deek, F., Jones, J., McCowan, D., Stephenson, C., & Verno, A. (2003). A model
curriculum for k-12 computer science: Final report of the ACM K-12 task force
curriculum committee. New York, NY: ACM.
Uerz, D., Volman, M., & Kral, M. (2017). Teacher educators’ competencies in fostering student
teachers’ proficiency in teaching and learning with technology: An overview of relevant
research literature. Teaching and Teacher Education, 70, 12-23. doi: 10.1016/
j.tate.2017.11.005
US Department of Education. (2016). Teacher shortage areas nationwide listing 1990-1991
through 2016-2017 [PDF file]. Retrieved from
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/pol/tsa.pdf
Usher, E. L. & Pajares, F. (2008). Sources of self-efficacy in school: Critical review of the
literature and future directions. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 751-796. doi:
10.3102/0034654308321456
Van Merriёnboer, J. J. G., & Ayres, P. (2005). Research on cognitive load theory and its design
implications for e-learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(3),
5-13. https://www.jstor.org/stable/30220437
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview
studies. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Wilson, C., Sudol, L. A., Stephenson, C., & Stehlik. (2010). Running on empty: The failure to
teach k-12 computer science in the digital age. Retrieved from:
http://www.ictliteracy.info/rf.pdf/Running_on_Empty_fullreport.pdf
DEVELOPING A COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAM 103
Yadav, A., Gretter, S., Hambrusch, S. & Sands, P. (2016). Expanding computer science
education in schools: Understanding teacher experiences and challenges. Computer
Science Education, 26(4), 235-254. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2016.1257418
Yadav, A. & Korb, J. T. (2012). Learning to teach computer science: The need for a methods
course. Communications of the ACM, 55(11), 31-33. doi: 10.1145/2366316.2366327
Yadav, A., Stephenson, C., & Hong, H. (2017). Computational thinking for teacher education.
Communications of the ACM, 60(4), 55-62. doi: 10.1145/2994591
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The study utilizes the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework to assess the knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs of novice and aspiring computer science teachers. The purpose of this study was to better understand the needs of such teachers in an effort to develop a computer science education program at a national institute of higher education. A qualitative methods design was used, including nine interviews with novice and aspiring computer science teachers seeking to participate in a professional development program and the analysis of their content knowledge pre-test scores. Findings from the study illustrate the need for a computer science education program that develops both content and pedagogical content knowledge, increases self-efficacy and interest in computer science generally, provides an experienced CS teacher as a role model, and aligns expectations with school leaders and participants. Based on a literature review and the findings from this study, a series of professional development trainings is proposed that support the development of prepared computer science educators.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Evaluation study: building teacher efficacy in K8 computer science integration
PDF
Raising women leaders of Christian higher education: an innovation study
PDF
Sustained mentoring of early childhood education teachers: an innovation study
PDF
STEM education in middle school: a promising practices study
PDF
Role of college program administrators in addressing gender gap in computer science
PDF
Technological pedagogical skills among K-12 teachers
PDF
Building teacher competency to work with middle school long-term English language learners: an improvement model
PDF
Facilitation of postsecondary opportunities for secondary students with special needs: an evaluation study
PDF
Preservice teacher preparation for engineering integration in K-5
PDF
The pedagogy of science teachers from non-natural science backgrounds
PDF
Latinas’ self-efficacy in computer science and potential factors undergirding their perspective
PDF
Leadership readiness: evaluating the effectiveness for developing managers as coaches
PDF
Teacher role in reducing the achievement gap: an evaluation study
PDF
Strategic support for philanthropic fundraising: a needs analysis of development officers in higher education
PDF
Parent engagement in higher education and its effect on first generation degree attainment: an innovation study
PDF
The mentorship of instructors and its impact on computer science interest among middle school girls: an evaluation study
PDF
STEM integration: a case study of a 21st century skills professional development program for math and science teachers in an urban school
PDF
Embedded academic support for high school student success: an innovation study
PDF
Computer science education in California public high schools: an evaluation study
PDF
Teachers' experiences implementing social and emotional learning in the elementary classroom
Asset Metadata
Creator
Ridgway, Raja Sundar
(author)
Core Title
Developing a computer science education program: an innovation study
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)
Publication Date
04/24/2019
Defense Date
03/06/2019
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
computer science teacher education,content knowledge development,OAI-PMH Harvest,pedagogical content knowledge development,teacher interest,teacher professional development,teacher self-efficacy,teachers as role models
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Freking, Frederick (
committee chair
), Maddox, Anthony (
committee member
), Muraszewski, Alison (
committee member
)
Creator Email
raja.ridgway@gmail.com,rridgway@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-142289
Unique identifier
UC11675736
Identifier
etd-RidgwayRaj-7222.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-142289 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-RidgwayRaj-7222.pdf
Dmrecord
142289
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Ridgway, Raja Sundar
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
computer science teacher education
content knowledge development
pedagogical content knowledge development
teacher interest
teacher professional development
teacher self-efficacy
teachers as role models