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
/
Computer science education in California public high schools: an evaluation study
(USC Thesis Other)
Computer science education in California public high schools: an evaluation study
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
COMPUTER SCIENCE EDUCATION IN CALIFORNIA PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOLS:
AN EVALUATION STUDY
by
Andrea Aguilar
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
December 2020
Copyright 2020 Andrea Aguilar
ii
Dedication
To all of the amazing students, hardworking educators, and innovative school leaders I
have had the pleasure to work with over the past twenty years in Southern California.
iii
Acknowledgements
Thank you to my family, friends and colleagues for your love, kindness and support.
Thank you to the school district who participated in the study for your dedication to teaching and
learning and leading the way in computer science education. Thank you to my dissertation
committee: Dr. Tracy Tambascia, Dr. Maria Ott, and Dr. George Cheung. I am grateful for your
patience, expertise and guidance.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ iii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. vi
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... vii
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................ viii
Chapter One: Introduction of the Problem of Practice ....................................................................1
Organizational Context and Mission .......................................................................1
Organizational Goal .................................................................................................2
Related Literature .....................................................................................................2
Importance of the Evaluation ...................................................................................4
Description of Stakeholder Groups ..........................................................................5
Stakeholders Groups’ Performance Goals ...............................................................5
Stakeholder Group for the Study .............................................................................5
Purpose of the Project and Questions ......................................................................6
Methodological Framework .....................................................................................7
Definitions ................................................................................................................7
Organization of the Project ......................................................................................8
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ...........................................................................................9
Benefits of Computer Science Education ................................................................9
Teaching and Learning Computer Science ............................................................10
Equity and Diversity ..............................................................................................13
Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences Framework .....................16
Stakeholder Knowledge and Motivation Influences ..............................................17
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and
Motivation and the Organizational Context ...........................................................25
Conclusion .............................................................................................................28
Chapter Three: Methods ...............................................................................................................29
Participating Stakeholders .....................................................................................29
Data Collection and Instrumentation .....................................................................31
Data Analysis .........................................................................................................32
Credibility and Trustworthiness .............................................................................34
Limitations and Delimitations ................................................................................35
Conclusion .............................................................................................................35
Chapter Four: Findings ..................................................................................................................37
Participating Stakeholders .....................................................................................37
Findings .................................................................................................................42
Document Analysis ................................................................................................55
v
Conclusion .............................................................................................................58
Chapter Five: Discussion ...............................................................................................................59
Transferrable Practices ...........................................................................................59
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach ..........................................................64
Limitations and Delimitations ................................................................................64
Future Research .....................................................................................................65
Conclusion .............................................................................................................65
References ......................................................................................................................................66
Appendices .....................................................................................................................................77
Appendix A Interview Protocol .............................................................................77
Appendix B Information Sheet for Exempt Applications ......................................80
Appendix C Document Analysis Protocol .............................................................82
vi
List of Tables
Table 1 Knowledge Influence, Knowledge Type, and Knowledge Influence Assessment ...........20
Table 2 Assumed Motivation Influence and Motivational Influence Assessments .......................23
Table 3 Assumed Organizational Influences and Organization Influence Assessment. ...............24
Table 4 Qualitative Analysis Timeline. .........................................................................................33
Table 5 Participant Pseudonyms ....................................................................................................41
Table 6 Knowledge Influences ......................................................................................................43
Table 7 Motivation Influences .......................................................................................................47
Table 8 Assumed Organizational Influences .................................................................................51
Table 9 Document Analysis Matrix of Key Words .......................................................................55
vii
List of Figures
Figure 1. District Conceptual Framework for CSAP USD. ...........................................................27
Figure 2. Interview participant data. ..............................................................................................38
Figure 3. Participant’s knowledge of teacher training opportunities in computer science. ...........45
viii
Abstract
This study used Clark and Estes’ gap analysis framework to examine knowledge,
motivation, and organizational theory to expand computer science opportunities for students by
increasing the number of qualified high school computer science teachers. The organization
targeted in this study was a K-12 public school district in a California suburban setting with a
total enrollment of about 12,000 students and 17 school sites. The district’s mission included
providing a student-centered 21
st
century education program, and priorities included completion
of college admission requirements, college and career readiness, and the Advanced Placement
pass rate. The district provides computer science opportunities in all grades. This study utilized
qualitative data gathering and analysis methodology. Ten interviews were conducted with
district and site administrators who oversaw curriculum and development of high school
computer science courses. Because the district is in the fourth year of a computer science
immersion initiative, it has had time to mature and refine practices related to the initiative. This
effort resulted in no gaps found in knowledge, motivational, or organizational assumed
influences. Transferrable practices from the district’s immersion initiative can be applied to
other educational organizations: a clear vision, initiative branding, strong partnerships, ongoing
professional development, giving teachers autonomy in implementation, and integrating
computer science into core subject areas.
Keywords: Computer Science, Computer Science Education, High School Computer Science,
Computer Science Teachers, Advanced Placement, College and Career Readiness.
1
Chapter One: Introduction of the Problem of Practice
There are not enough computer science graduates to fill jobs in this field throughout
California, despite the state’s global recognition as a technology leader. California currently has
97,652 open computing jobs, but only 7,311 students obtained bachelor’s degrees in this field in
2018 (Code.org, 2020c). This low number means there are not enough computer science courses
and instructors available in California public high schools. Teacher preparation programs in the
state did not graduate any new teachers prepared to teach this subject in 2018 (Code.org, 2020c).
Only 33% of California high schools with AP programs offered computer science AP courses in
the 2018–2019 term (Code.org, 2020c). Research also indicates that students who take computer
science in high school are six times more likely to major in the field than those who do not
(College Board, 2007), and women are 10 times more likely (Code.org, 2020c), so accessibility
of advanced these courses at the secondary level is essential for building the pipeline for
advanced study in this field.
Organizational Context and Mission
The organization targeted for this study is a K-12 public school district in California. The
district is in a suburban setting and has a total enrollment of about 12,000 students with 17 sites
and is ranked at 24 on the state’s ethnic diversity index (Ed Data, 2019). Sixty-nine percent of
the student population is socioeconomically disadvantaged, and 9% are English learners
(California School Dashboard, 2019). In 2019, 50.4% of students were prepared for college and
career, a 4.7% increase, according to the California School Dashboard (2019). The district has
561 teachers, 46 pupil services staff, and 43 administrators (Ed Data, 2019). A pseudonym for
this organization is used herein: CSAP USD. The district mission includes providing a student-
centered 21
st
century education program and priorities include completion of college admission
2
requirements, career readiness, and AP pass rate. The district employs professionally
credentialed instructors, and many teachers hold advanced college degrees. The district provides
computer science opportunities in all grades, which made it the ideal organization for this study.
The district partnered with a third-party company to open computer science magnets at various
schools so that students can develop coding skills as part of their daily curriculum. The district’s
initial work concentrated on elementary and middle schools.
Organizational Goal
The organizational goal is to increase student opportunities in computer science through
AP course offerings and enrollment and to increase the number of students passing the AP exam
by 100%. The CSAP USD has several expectations and outcomes that align with increasing both
offerings and participation, including the district’s mission and vision of having programs
relating to this field and its career pathways. Progress toward these goals is tracked by the
district, and results are confirmed by the College Board, which records AP data. This area of
performance also affects the organization’s goals to prepare students for college and career,
including in one of the district’s measurable targets of student completion of California State
University and University of California admission requirements. Currently, the rate of progress
toward meeting the organizational goal is not identifiable.
Related Literature
Computer science drives job growth and innovation and is the primary source of new
wages in the United States (Code.org, 2020c). Even though computing is used in virtually every
field, it is marginalized in education with only 45% of U.S. high schools teaching computer
science and 11% of bachelor’s degrees granted in this field (Code.org, 2020c). Some factors that
hinder the field’s growth are student perceptions of and exposure to the subject. Three
3
challenges for high schools offering courses on this topic are rapidly changing technology, lack
of staff support or interest, and lack of curriculum resources (Bowman, 2018).
Interest in computer science degrees is declining, and the lack of interest may begin in
high school (Bowman, 2018). Students may be concerned with self-image as computer science
majors, potential job satisfaction in the field, and perceived rigor required for the subject
(Bowman, 2018). Some students view the computer science environment as one of
“programming,” which creates a narrow perception of the field (Denning & McGettrick, 2005).
Other perceptions are that the field is nerdy compared to others and that computing requires
extraordinary proficiency at math (Denning & McGettrick, 2005). A study of 105 students at a
Midwestern university in the United States conducted in 2000 noted that females feel
collaboration is discouraged in the field, and thus view the culture and environment as hostile
(Wilson, 2002).
Exposure to the field is limited in many K-12 public schools in the United States. In a
case study of school reform in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), it was noted
computer science is not considered a core academic subject (Goode & Margolis, 2011). One of
the barriers to growing the field is growing and retaining qualified teachers, and, overall, there is
a shortage in the United States because teachers do not stay in the classroom very long due to the
high demand for computer science expertise outside of the classroom (Guzdial, 2016). A 3-year
study of three high schools in LAUSD noted that, for teachers, there is no clear path to becoming
a computer science instructor, there is a lack of curriculum for these courses, and there are
limited opportunities for collaborative planning or to participate in a professional learning
community (Goode, 2007).
4
Equity and diversity are other factors to consider in the field of computer science
education. Women, African Americans, and Hispanics are vastly underrepresented in this fields
educational pipeline and workforce, and this disparity is connected to the high school experience
(Dettori et al., 2016). Gender and racial underrepresentation are evident in an examination of
participation in the AP Computer Science exam, which demonstrates the challenge of broadening
participation of women and underserved communities (Goode, 2008b). Only 45% of high
schools in the U.S. teach computer science courses, and they still lack girls and underrepresented
minorities, with students receiving free or reduced-price lunch and students from rural areas less
likely to attend a school that offers the subject (Code.org, 2020a). Preliminary data from 2019
AP Computer Science exams reveals female students made up only 29.3% of examinees and
underrepresented minority students made up only 21.9% (Code.org, 2020a).
Importance of the Evaluation
It is important to solve this problem for a variety of reasons. The number of computer
science majors is dropping across the United States (Carter, 2006), and the number of college
graduates in this field needs to increase to fill available jobs (National Center for Education
Statistics, 2015). This is important because prior experience with computers in high school is a
positive factor in college computer science success (Taylor & Luegina, 1991). In California,
affluent students are almost twice as likely to be offered these courses in high school (Goode,
2007). The gap in access to high school technology concentration and growth contributes to
inequity and a lack of diversity in the field (Florida & Gates, 2003).
5
Description of Stakeholder Groups
Three stakeholder groups for CSAP USD are district and site administrators, teachers,
and students. Site administrators, including principals, lead the school sites and are accountable
to the district administrators and local elected school board officials. Principals also ensure the
school sites align with state and federal standards for public schools. Teachers work directly with
students to deliver a standards-based curriculum. Teachers also deliver instruction for career
technical education (CTE) and Advanced Placement (AP) courses, which provide students with
college credit when they are in high school. Students are the learners who receive instruction,
and they are also the beneficiaries of programmatic decisions made district and site
administrators.
Stakeholders Groups’ Performance Goals
Stakeholder Group for the Study
Although a complete analysis would involve all stakeholder groups, for practical
purposes, the focus of this study was on district and site administrators. Administrators have
Organizational Mission
Prepare students for college and career including one of the district’s measurable targets of
student completion of CSU/UC A-G requirements.
Organizational Performance Goal
By 2022, the CSAP USD will increase student opportunities in the field of computer science
through computer science AP course offerings and enrollment and increasing the number of
students passing the computer science AP exam by 100%.
Administrator Goal
By Fall 2021, administrators
will increase the number of
teachers qualified to teach
computer science by 100%.
Teacher Goal
By Spring 2021, 100% more
teachers will be qualified to
teach computer science
courses.
Student Goal
By Fall 2022, 100% more
students will pass the computer
science AP exam which will
support college and career
readiness.
6
access to resources (funding) and can make decisions that affect both teachers and students. This
is also the stakeholder group that could implement resources to meet the district’s goal. For the
purposes of this study, the term “administrators” will refer specifically to high school principals,
assistant principals, and central district personnel who oversee high school curriculum and
computer science course development. The organizational performance evaluated is also related
to the larger problem of the lack of computer science majors, resulting in a lack of qualified
applicants to fill jobs in this field throughout California.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to evaluate the degree to which the organization is
meeting its goal of increasing student opportunities in the field of computer science. The analysis
centered on stakeholders’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences related to
achieving the organizational goal. While a complete performance evaluation would focus on all
stakeholders, for practical purposes, the only stakeholder to be focused on in this analysis were
district and site administrators. As such, the questions that guide this study address knowledge
and skills, motivation, and organization influences for administrators.
1. To what extent is the organization meeting its goal to increase student opportunities in the
field of computer science?
2. What are the district and site administrators’ levels of knowledge and motivation related
to increasing student opportunities in the field of computer science?
3. What is the interaction between organizational culture and context and district and site
administrators’ knowledge and motivation?
4. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources?
7
Methodological Framework
This project employed a qualitative data gathering and analysis methodology. CSAP
USD district and site administrators and their current performance in relation to the
organizational goal were assessed using interviews and document analysis. Research-based
solutions are recommended and evaluated comprehensively.
Definitions
Advanced Placement (AP): “AP gives students the chance to tackle college-level work
while they're still in high school and earn college credit and placement” (College Board, 2019b,
p. 1).
Association for Computing Machinery (ACM): The world’s largest computing society
and includes computing educators, researchers, and professionals (ACM, 2019).
College Board: A non-profit organization created to expand student access to higher
education, including via the SAP and the Advanced Placement Program, and its members
include 6,000 educational institutions (College Board, 2019a).
Computer Science (CS): “The science that deals with the theory and methods of
processing information in digital computers, the design of computer hardware and software, and
the applications of computers” (Dictionary.com, 2019).
Computer Science Teachers Association (CSTA): A professional association that
“supports and encourages education in the field of computer science and related areas,” including
computer science education in K-12, higher education, and industry (Wikipedia, 2019, para. 1).
Career Technical Education (CTE): “A program of study that involves a multiyear
sequence of courses that integrates core academic knowledge with technical and occupational
8
knowledge to provide students with a pathway to postsecondary education and careers”
(California Department of Education, 2019a).
Organization of the Project
Five chapters are used to organize this study. This chapter provided the reader with the
key concepts and terminology related to increasing student opportunities in the field of computer
science by 100% at CSAP USD. The organization’s mission, goals, and stakeholders and the
framework for the project were introduced. Chapter Two provides a review of current literature
regarding the scope of the study. The benefits of computer science education, teaching and
learning in the field, and equity and diversity challenges related to the field will be addressed.
Chapter Three details the knowledge, motivation, and organizational elements that were
examined as well as methodology in terms of the choice of participants, data collection, and
analysis. In Chapter Four, findings are presented and analyzed. Chapter Five provides a
discussion based on the results and findings.
9
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
The problem of practice focuses on the low number of public high schools offering AP
Computer Science. Students who take this course in high school are more likely to major in the
field (Taylor & Luegina, 1991). To create more computer science opportunities at the high
school level, more teachers who are qualified to teach this subject are needed. Also, more
student opportunities are needed to create equitable high school access, as underrepresented
students’ success in computer science courses and AP exams is not proportionate to their
respective populations (Howard & Havard, 2019).
This chapter reviews literature on the benefits of computer science education, teaching
and learning computer science, and equity and diversity challenges related to the field to help
inform the problem of practice. The chapter will also discuss the lens used in this study, defining
the types of knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences (Clark & Estes, 2008) and
their assumed influences on site and district administrators’ performance. The chapter ends with
a presentation of the conceptual framework guiding this study.
Benefits of Computer Science Education
Computer science is a powerful educational tool that promotes critical thinking, problem
solving, and creativity, and computer competencies are in high demand across industries (Nager
& Atkinson, 2016). Students are heavily influenced by computing, and many will enter careers
that involve or are influenced by computing (Barr & Stephenson, 2011). In each step of problem
solving in computer science, students learn core skills they can apply in any field (Gal-Ezer &
Stephenson, 2014). Experienced computer scientists can address and solve a variety of problems
and challenges in a wide variety of fields industries (Nager & Atkinson, 2016). The field is
connected to scientific and humanistic fields, and many breakthroughs are enabled through the
10
field of computing (Gal-Ezer & Stephenson, 2014). Complex challenges in today’s world
require teams with diverse knowledge and skills across multiple domains, and knowledge of
computer science can support the analysis of these challenges as well as solution implementation
and design (Gal-Ezer & Stephenson, 2014). Leaps of innovation through computing can help to
solve various world problems and help researchers envision new problem-solving strategies and
solutions (Barr & Stephenson, 2011). Students in this field gain valuable skills that can apply
across many employment arenas.
Teaching and Learning Computer Science
In the United States, access and content of computer science vary at the state, school
district levels as well as even within schools in the same district (Gal-Ezer & Stephenson, 2014).
The teaching and learning experience varies from school to school because of de-centralization
in the education system (Gal-Ezer & Stephenson, 2014). Efforts such as the Common Core State
Standards focus on standardizing student learning, but they focus on core academic subjects
(Gal-Ezer & Stephenson, 2014). For years, computer science courses in high school have been
built around literacy or applications, or programming and coding (Gal-Ezer & Stephenson,
2014).
Computer Science Education in California
The state of California has several computer science programs, including adopting its
first computer science standards (California Department of Education, 2018a). These standards
were developed by teachers are designed to help students move from passive users of technology
to creators and innovators who interact with computers (California Department of Education,
2018a). The standards push students to communicate as scientists and find creative solutions to
11
difficult problems (California Department of Education, 2018a). Formal education pathways can
broaden participation in computer science (Adrion et al., 2016).
Career technical education (CTE) provides an opportunity to expose students to computer
science courses and career pathways. CTE provides students with academic and technical skills,
knowledge, and training to succeed in future careers (California Department of Education,
2019a). CTE also provides an opportunity to expose students to computer science courses and
career pathways. Many jobs and careers in the next 50 years have not been created yet, and CTE
programs train students to compete, perform, and survive in a global economy (Nikirk, 2009).
Thus, CTE presents possible future programs, electives, and technologies students might use
(Nikirk, 2009). Standards and frameworks are available, and there are 15 industry sectors in
CTE in California, including information and communication technologies (California
Department of Education, 2018c). The CTE pathways have the potential to increase secondary
student involvement in computer science by offering students a deeper understanding of career
pathways, building interest, and preparing students to pursue careers in the field (Hyslop, 2010).
Advanced Placement (AP) gives students the opportunity to earn credit for college-level
courses while in high school. The AP program is a cooperative endeavor between secondary
schools and higher education based on the premise that college-level courses can be successfully
taught in high school (Curry et al., 1999). The “AP effect” shows that students who take these
courses develop skills to be successful in college and pursue more challenging courses and
majors (Curry et al., 1999). The College Board administers AP curriculum, exams, and reporting
and offers two courses related to computer science: AP Computer Science Principles and AP
Computer Science A (College Board, 2018a). The principles course focuses on the fundamentals
12
of computing (College Board, 2018c), while the AP course covers the JAVA programming
language (College Board, 2018b).
Challenges for Computer Science Teachers
Computer science teachers have unique characteristics and face various challenges. Many
of them do not have formal computer science training and need support to begin and continue
teaching the subject (Ni & Guzdial, 2012). These teachers often are provided with very few
resources and commonly have their main focus in another field, so they may not have deep
expertise or time to invest in the subject (Nager & Atkinson, 2016). Computer science
languages, paradigms, and tools also change rapidly and have become more complex (Roberts,
2004). It takes time to develop quality teachers in this rigorous discipline (Nager & Atkinson,
2016). Additional challenges are isolation, lack of adequate background, and limited
professional development opportunities (Yadav et al., 2016). Some feel isolated, lack
confidence, and have a narrow view of computer science and its values (Ni & Guzdial, 2012).
Ni and Guzdial (2012) cited four factors that influence teachers’ perceptions about their identity
related to computer science teaching: educational background and certification, computer science
curriculum and department hierarchy, availability of computer science teacher community, and
teachers’ perceptions about the field. Finding teachers who have both computer science and
pedagogical knowledge to be a good teacher and are willing to work for wages far lower than in
the tech industry is rare (Nager & Atkinson, 2016). It is evident that these teachers have
insufficient resources and training to meet demand (Roberts, 2004).
Challenges for Computer Science Students
Exposure, perception, interest, and retention are challenges in building a computer
science student pipeline. The success of university departments comes from students' exposure to
13
the field while they are in high school, but many students do not have a correct impression of
what computer science majors learn or the usefulness in the workforce (Nager & Atkinson,
2016). Pre-college exposure and the undesirability of a career of only coding are also factors
(Biggers et al., 2008). The field is also often stigmatized as geeky or difficult to learn, and it is
treated as an elective rather than a requirement (Nager & Atkinson, 2016). Loss of interest in
computing as a career is a significant factor in students’ leaving the major (Biggers et al., 2008).
Perceptions that computer science is hard and frustrating may due to the fact that computer
models have to be self-constructed from the ground up and feedback that comes from a computer
can be discouraging for students who prefer reflective or social learning (Ben-Ari, 1998).
Students may also confuse computer literacy, where they may do very well, with computer
science, but do not realize the extent of the math and computer skills needed to pursue the major
(Beaubouef & Mason, 2005). Students also need to manage time and resources when pursuing
careers in this field because the subject can be demanding, time-consuming and frustrating, and
students who are not entirely committed can become discouraged and change majors (Beaubouef
& Mason, 2005). Critical needs in this field of education are stronger measures to build and
retain interest and highlighting its importance in the world (Gal-Ezer & Stephenson, 2014).
Equity and Diversity
Learning opportunities in K-12 computer science are limited for minorities, and AP
statistics support this claim. The lack of available computer science courses at the secondary
level presents disadvantages for women and minorities, and the AP Computer Science course has
the worst gender balance of any AP course (Cuny, 2012). The representation of females, African
Americans, and Latinos remains low in these courses and among those who take the exam
(Margolis et al., 2015). The AP Computer Science course is seen as a barrier for female and
14
minority students, as it does not demonstrate the breadth of application and connections to other
fields (Camp, 2012). Computer Science A enrollment is low overall but even lower for African
Americans and Hispanics, and perceptions, encouragement, and exposure are critical factors
related to participation and interest (Wang et al., 2016). In a study of the landscape of computer
science education in the U.S., students and parents described the characteristics of a computer
scientist as mostly White, male, and wearing glasses; thus, African American and Hispanic
students may be less likely to have a sense of belonging (Wang et al., 2016). Minorities are
more likely to attend schools with low resources that do not offer courses in this field, which can
be detrimental because high school is when students begin to explore career paths and student
majors (Cuny, 2012).
At the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, lack of student motivation contributed
to withdrawal rates as well as low female and minority enrollment in computer science education
(Forte & Guzdial, 2005). If students’ diverse interests and backgrounds are not connected to
programming and computer science concepts, which typically happens in later courses rather
than introductory courses, they can become de-motivated and discouraged from the pursuit of
learning in the field (Forte & Guzdial, 2005). Forte and Guzdial (2005) proposed tailoring
courses to connect to a student’s chosen discipline to create a more motivating and engaging
context, which leads to less anxiety, increased interest and achievement, and more positive
perceptions of the discipline for non-majors. For non-majors, an emphasis on programming can
lead to negative perceptions of the field, and this approach is not compatible with many students’
needs or interests and uses concepts that are not transferrable to other domains (Forte & Guzdial,
2005). Culture of the courses and making sure students are comfortable asking questions
contribute to student’s success and confidence (Forte & Guzdial, 2005). Webb, Repenning, and
15
Koh (2012) found a focused recruitment campaign, and culturally relevant curriculum can attract
underrepresented students to the subject.
The Gender Gap in Computer Science
Reaching girls before high school is important as social encouragement, self-perception,
academic exposure, and career perception contribute to whether females pursue computer
science (Nager & Atkinson, 2016). In addition to low confidence, another reason for the low
number of women in the field is the unflattering stereotype about the field, including that, while
those in it are intelligent, they lack interpersonal skills (Beyer et al., 2003). Increasing
confidence in female computer science majors could be accomplished by encouragement,
internships, teaching and lab assistantships, and other opportunities (Beyer et al., 2003). Support
for this population is needed to modify existing social forces (Campbell & McCabe, 1984).
Scragg and Smith (1998) suggest outreach programs for K-12 students, computer science
departments working with colleges of education to help prepare teachers to teach the subject and
become role models, and mentoring programs. A study of higher education computer science
departments in the state of Virginia from 1992 through 1997 cited factors that retained women at
comparable rates to men as including at least one woman on the faculty; valuing, mentoring, and
supervising female students; and shared ownership of student success (Cohoon, 2001).
Additional retention factors were access to a strong local job market and enough female students
in each class to support each other (Cohoon, 2001). The study recommended deans and
chairpersons consider recruitment of female students and faculty as well as teaching and
mentoring in the context of how their own department operates (Cohoon, 2001).
A study of undergraduate women studying computer science at Carnegie Mellon
University found women were underrepresented in the major on that campus and across the
16
country (Fisher et al., 1997). Low representation stems in part from the secondary level where
females do not participate in computer science courses and activities as much as males, and this
gap continues into more advanced courses (Fisher et al., 1997). At the time of this study,
females comprised only 12% of AP Computer Science test-takers in the past five years (Fisher et
al., 1997). Another issue is that women felt less prepared than males so prior experience is a
factor (Fisher et al., 1997). There was also a gap between women’s perceived ability and their
actual performance (Fisher et al., 1997). Some of the reasons females chose computer science as
a major were intrinsic motivation, class experiences, promise in the field performance, and a
larger purpose of what they can do in the world (Fisher et al., 1997).
Women often enter introductory computer science courses with less experience than men
and thus have to work harder to initially succeed, and this may diminish their sense of
accomplishment (Murphy & Thomas, 2008). Collaboration such as pair-programming could
help attract more diverse students, as it can boost confidence, retention, and increase program
quality and student enjoyment (Murphy & Thomas, 2008). Specific issues unique to computer
science are that computing experience prior to college varies by gender, the flexibility of
software makes it easier to include social biases in computing designs, and the culture in these
departments is not attractive to women (Roberts et al., 2002). To address some of these issues,
Stanford developed programs that were more appealing to all students, designed an introductory
course that was relevant and supportive of all students, and provided opportunities for women
entering these programs to see other women at various stages (Roberts et al., 2002).
Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences Framework
In this section, the Clark and Estes (2008) framework was used, as it is suited to study
stakeholder performance within an organizational setting. Clark and Estes (2008) state there are
17
three critical factors to examine when conducting a gap analysis: people’s knowledge and skills,
motivation to achieve the goal, and organizational barriers. This problem-solving process is
based on understanding stakeholder goals with regard to the organizational goal and identifying
assumed performance influences in the areas of knowledge, motivation, and organization based
on general theory, context-specific literature, and an existing understanding of the organization.
Knowledge and skills include information, job aids, training, and education (Clark & Estes,
2008). Three types of motivational processes are active choice, persistence, and mental effort
(Clark & Estes, 2008). Organizational barriers include missing or inadequate processes and
materials (Clark & Estes, 2008). This section will discuss administrators’ knowledge and skills,
motivation, and organizational barriers to increase the number of teachers qualified to teach high
school computer science at CSAP USD by Fall 2021.
Stakeholder Knowledge and Motivation Influences
CSAP USD strives to provide programs relating to computer science and career pathways
associated with it. One way to support these expectations and outcomes is to offer computer
science AP courses at all high schools in the district. By Fall 2021, high school principals,
assistant principals, and central district personnel who oversee high school curriculum and
computer science course development will increase the number of teachers qualified to teach
computer science by 100%.
Knowledge and Skills
This section will discuss the knowledge required of the district and site administrator
stakeholders to increase the number of teachers qualified to teach computer science at the high
school level by 100% by Fall 2021. A review of knowledge related influences will be presented
as they relate to this goal. The four knowledge dimensions are defined by Krathwohl (2002) as
18
factual, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive. Factual knowledge includes facts, and basic
information specific to disciplines, contexts, or domains (Rueda, 2011). Conceptual knowledge
is knowledge of categories, classifications, and structures (Rueda, 2011). Procedural knowledge
is how to do something, and metacognitive knowledge is awareness of one’s own cognition
(Krathwohl, 2002). Each of the stakeholder knowledge influences presented will be categorized
by their respective knowledge types.
It is important to examine knowledge and skills in problem solving for several reasons.
As previously mentioned, three factors are examined in a gap analysis: people’s knowledge and
skills, motivation to achieve the goal, and organizational barriers (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Knowledge and skills are required when people do not know how to accomplish their
performance goals and may need job aids or training (Clark & Estes, 2008). People may also
need to handle novel and unexpected challenges where training may be needed (Clark & Estes,
2008). This section will discuss the knowledge and skills required of the district and site
administrator stakeholder to increase the number of teachers qualified to teach computer science
at the high school level at CSAP USD by Fall 2021.
Training Opportunities for Teachers
To support the stakeholder goal, site and district administrators need factual knowledge
regarding training opportunities available for teachers. Teachers face unique challenges in
building and sustaining computer science courses, as there can be little support and a steep
learning curve (Goode, 2008a). The Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) K-12
Taskforce recommended teacher preparation, including on mastery of the domain (Tucker,
2003). ACM cited several options, such as in-services, certifications, and provisions, to retrain
19
teachers already in the school system (Tucker, 2003). Other examples include district-wide
workshops, state and regional events, and professional recognition (Tucker, 2003).
Goode and Margolis (2011) conducted a National Science Foundation study which
entailed the creation and delivery of an Essentials of Computer Science course offered in Los
Angeles schools. The authors found that professional development was essential for delivering a
new curriculum (Goode & Margolis, 2011). However, this option alone was not enough. In
addition, weekend workshops, coaching, and teacher inquiry models were offered, and teachers
reported a sense of community, awareness of pedagogical approaches, and a sense of academic
hospitality (Goode & Margolis, 2011). Hew and Brush (2007) cited the importance of
professional development to overcome barriers to integrating technology. The authors
recommend training that focuses on content, gives teachers opportunities for hands-on work, and
is consistent with the teachers’ needs.
Implementing Computer Science Training Programs
To further support the stakeholder goal of increasing the number of qualified teachers,
administrators also need procedural knowledge of how to implement successful computer
science training programs. There are several resources in the state of California that
administrators can reference, including the California Department of Education (CDE) and the
College Board. The CDE provides an extensive implementation guide for administrators and
teachers to use. Another resource that administrators can use is the College Board. The College
Board provides information so that site and district administrators can review the steps required
to offer AP Computer Science courses and exams (College Board, 2018). It also offers teacher
resources and professional development opportunities (College Board, 2018). Table 1 displays
20
the organizational mission, organizational global goal, stakeholder goal, and the corresponding
knowledge influences, knowledge types, and knowledge influence assessments.
Table 1
Knowledge Influence, Knowledge Type, and Knowledge Influence Assessment
Organizational Mission
Prepare students for college and career including one of the district’s measurable targets of
student completion of CSU/UC A-G requirements
Organizational Global Goal
By 2022, CSAP USD will increase student opportunities in the field of computer science in
several specific ways including offering the computer science AP course at every school site,
and increasing the number of students passing the computer science AP exam by 100%.
Stakeholder Goal
By Fall 2021, administrators (including high school principals, assistant principals, and central
district personnel who oversee curriculum and course development of computer science
courses at the high school level) will increase the number of teachers qualified to teach
computer science by 100%.
Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type Knowledge Influence
Assessment
Administrators need knowledge of
what training opportunities are
available for teachers in computer
science.
Declarative
(Factual)
Administrators will be asked to
cite information regarding
existing CS training programs in
the state of CA.
Administrators need to know how
to implement successful computer
science training programs for
teachers.
Procedural Administrators will be asked to
submit an implementation plan to
offer CS training for teachers at
every school site.
Motivation
This section will discuss the motivation required of the administrator stakeholder to
increase the number of teachers qualified to teach computer science at the high school level by
Fall 2021. A review of motivation-related influences will be presented as they relate to this goal.
Motivation is the process of instigating and sustaining goal-directed activity (Rueda, 2011).
Three related motivational indicators are active choice, persistence, and effort (Rueda, 2011).
Motivation, as defined by Pintrich (2003), is associated with adaptive self-efficacy and
21
competence beliefs, adaptive attributions and control beliefs, higher levels of interest and
intrinsic motivation, higher levels of value, and goals to motivate and direct.
It is important to examine motivation in problem solving for several reasons. Motivation
is the second critical factor cited by Clark and Estes (2008) in conducting a gap analysis. Some
of the benefits of increasing motivation are increasing confidence, collaboration, trust, optimism,
positivity, values, persistence at tasks (Clark & Estes, 2008). Increased motivation also results in
higher-quality mental effort (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Utility Value for Administrators
Administrators need to see the utility value of offering computer science training for
teachers. Task value comes from expectancy-value theory, is the importance a person attaches to
the task, and has four dimensions: attainment value, intrinsic value, utility value, and cost value
(Rueda, 2011). Utility value is how useful a person believes a task is for achieving the goal
(Rueda, 2011). It is determined by how well a task fits into a person’s goals, plans, or basic
psychological needs (Eccles, 2006).
Research shows that students who take AP Computer Science in high school are six times
more likely to major in computer science than those who do not (College Board, 2007).
Providing more learning opportunities to students requires qualified teachers, so administrators
must provide training for them. Very few high school teachers have formal computer science
training, and many high schools do not even have a teacher for this subject (Ni & Guzdial, 2012).
Thus, teachers need training to stay committed and gain confidence in the subject (Ni & Guzdial,
2012). School principals, assistant principals, and district personnel need to provide this
training, and the utility value is that more students have the opportunity to pursue computer
science. Goode (2007) discussed teachers as change agents who can disrupt school systems that
22
limit opportunities for underrepresented students to access high-status knowledge. The issue of
equal access to computer science is another utility value for school leaders, who can empower
teachers to help close this gap by providing support through training. Administrators need to
understand the utility value of offering training to teachers to support the goal of increasing the
number of qualified computer science teachers in the district.
Goal Orientation for Administrators
Site administrators should have a goal-orientation approach in that they should want to do
more than the bare minimum to exceed the requirements for college and career readiness. A goal
is something a person wants to achieve, and one area to consider is goal orientation (Rueda,
2011). Goal orientation focuses on the purpose of engaging in achievement behaviors (Rueda,
2011). There are two types of goal orientation: mastery goal orientation and performance goal
orientation (Rueda, 2011). Mastery goal orientation is when a learner wants to truly understand
or master a task for self-improvement (Yough, 2009). Performance goal orientation is when a
learner wants to demonstrate their performance compared to others and is concerned with
competition (Yough, 2009).
Administrators should try to exceed the base requirements for college and career
readiness, as the country’s future economic growth depends on a strong computer science
workforce, and not enough students are pursuing careers in this field (Goode, 2007). Many
teachers enter the field with a moral purpose, but, for the teacher as change agent, personal
vision, inquiry, mastery, and collaboration are needed (Goode, 2007). In addition, mastery and
professional development that centers on equity in the classroom is recommended (Goode,
2007). Table 2 displays the organizational mission, organizational global goal, stakeholder goal,
23
and the corresponding motivational indicators, assumed motivational influences, and
motivational influence assessments.
Table 2
Assumed Motivation Influence and Motivational Influence Assessments
Organizational Mission
Prepare students for college and career including one of the district’s measurable targets of student
completion of CSU/UC A-G requirements.
Organizational Global Goal
By 2022, CSAP USD will increase student opportunities in the field of computer science in several
specific ways including offering the computer science AP course at every school site, and increasing the
number of students passing the computer science AP exam by 100%.
Stakeholder Goal
By Fall 2021, administrators (including high school principals, assistant principals, and central district
personnel who oversee curriculum and course development of computer science courses at the high school
level) will increase the number of teachers qualified to teach computer science by 100%.
Motivational Indicator(s)
Assumed Motivation Influence Motivational Influence Assessment
Utility Value – Administrators need to see the value of
offering computer science training for teachers.
Interview prompt pertaining to importance of
offering computer science training for teachers.
Goal Orientation – Administrators should want to do
more than the bare minimum and go beyond showing
to district administration that they are exceeding the
base requirements for college and career readiness.
Interview prompt pertaining to investing time to
learn about different ways to implement CS
courses and programs from other aspirational
sites.
Interview prompt: “Share your college and career
readiness goals about implementing CS
opportunities at your site.”
Organization
General Theory
The lack of efficient and effective organizational work processes and materials is the
third cause of performance gaps identified by Clark and Estes (2008) and is also affected by
organizational culture. Cultural settings are shared mental schema of how the world works and
include behavioral and cognitive components (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Cultural models
are tools for the mind that develop over time and represent shared and familiar ways of thinking
(Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001).
24
Stakeholder Specific Factors
School reform can be supported by conceptualizing cultural settings and models
(Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Settings and models inform each other and are interconnected
in ways that shape innovation (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). From a cultural model
perspective, a lack of trust between administrators (both at the school and district levels) and
teachers may contribute to organizational problems at the administrator level. From a cultural
setting perspective, teachers’ need for effective role models who are experienced in teaching
computer science and their need for time to receive training may also contribute to the problems.
Table 3 displays the organizational mission, organizational global goal, stakeholder goal, and the
corresponding cultural model influences, cultural setting influences, and organizational influence
assessments.
Table 3
Assumed Organizational Influences and Organization Influence Assessment.
Organizational Mission
Prepare students for college and career including one of the district’s measurable targets of student
completion of CSU/UC A-G requirements.
Organizational Global Goal
By 2022, CSAP USD will increase student opportunities in the field of computer science in several
specific ways including increasing computer science AP course offerings and enrollment, and
increasing the number of students passing the computer science AP exam by 100%.
Stakeholder Goal (If Applicable)
By Fall 2021, administrators (including high school principals, assistant principals, and central
district personnel who oversee curriculum and course development of computer science courses at the
high school level) will increase the number of teachers qualified to teach computer science by 100%.
Assumed Organizational Influences Organization Influence Assessment
Cultural Model Influence 1:
There needs to be a culture of trust in the school
between administrators and the teachers in order
to achieve the institutional goal of integrating
computer science into teaching.
Survey or interview questions about whether
teachers trust administrators.
25
Assumed Organizational Influences Organization Influence Assessment
Cultural Setting Influence 1:
Teachers need enough time from their non-
teaching responsibilities in order to have time to
receive training to integrate computer science
into their courses.
Survey or interview questions about how much
training time they have and whether teachers feel
they have enough time.
Cultural Setting Influence 2:
Teachers need effective role models within the
institution who have integrated computer science
into courses.
Survey or interview questions about knowing
others they could turn to ask how they have
integrated the topics into their courses.
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation and
the Organizational Context
A conceptual framework is system of concepts, assumptions, expectations, beliefs, and
theories that supports and informs a research study and is represented in a visual or written
product (Maxwell, 2013). Rocco and Plakhotnik (2009) stated that the purpose of a conceptual
framework is to categorize and outline concepts related to a study and map their relationships.
The conceptual framework also guides the research process by defining key variables, specific
areas to be investigated, selection of research design, choice of sampling, data collection
strategies, and interpretation of findings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). While each of the
administrator influences presented is independent of the others, they do not remain in isolation
from each other. The conceptual framework includes administrator influences that are part of
and interact with the school district’s cultural settings and models as a whole and are represented
as such.
Figure 1 represents the conceptual framework for this study. The primary stakeholders
are influenced by factual knowledge concerning training opportunities. Procedural knowledge
related to how to implement successful training for teachers is also an influencer. Motivational
influencers are utility value (administrators’ seeing the value of offering training) and goal
orientation (the desire to exceed the base requirements of college and career readiness). Teacher
26
training relates directly to the district’s cultural settings and models, which call for providing a
21
st
century education program and computer science for all grades. The district brands itself as
a computer science district. In addition, LCFF student achievement priorities include completion
of college admission requirements, college and career readiness, and an improved AP pass rate.
27
Figure 1. District Conceptual Framework for CSAP USD.
28
The district conceptual framework includes the school district as the overarching
organization along with its cultural settings and models in the larger circle. Administrators are
part of the organization at both the district and site level and are represented in the smaller circle.
Administrators’ knowledge and motivation influencers mentioned in the figure interact with the
district’s cultural settings and models because they align and support the organizational mission
to prepare students for college and career. In addition, the administrator influencers affect the
organizational global to increase student opportunities in the field of computer science, by 2022,
in specific ways, including offering the computer science AP course at every high school and
increasing the number of students passing the AP exam. The arrow in the figure represents the
administrator goal to increase, by Fall 2021, the number of teachers qualified to teach computer
science by providing training for them so that each school site has a qualified teacher. Having
more qualified teachers will directly increase student opportunities in this area.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to increase student opportunities in the field of computer
science at CSAP USD. This chapter reviewed literature on the benefits of computer science
education, teaching and learning computer science, and equity and diversity challenges related to
the field. An explanation of Clark and Estes’ (2008) knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences’ lens used in this study was presented. In addition, the types of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences were examined and the assumed administrators’
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on performance were defined. The chapter
ended with a presentation of the conceptual framework guiding this study. Chapter Three will
present the study’s methodological approach.
29
Chapter Three: Methods
The purpose of this project was to evaluate the degree to which CSAP USD is meeting its
goal to increase student opportunities in the field of computer science. The analysis focused on
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences related to achieving the organizational
goal. While a complete performance evaluation would focus on all stakeholders, for practical
purposes, the stakeholder to be focused on in this analysis were district and site administrators
who oversee the high school curriculum and computer science course development. This was a
qualitative case study. The questions that guided this study address knowledge and skills,
motivation, and organization influences for administrators.
1. To what extent is CSAP USD meeting its goal to increase student opportunities in the
field of computer science?
2. What are the district and site administrator’s knowledge and motivation related to
increasing student opportunities in the field of computer science?
3. What is the interaction between CSAP USD culture and context and district and site
administrator’s knowledge and motivation?
4. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources?
Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholder population of focus consisted of CSAP USD district and site
administrators who have direct influence over high school sites: principals, assistant principals,
and district administrators. The rationale for targeting this population is that district and site
administrators have access to resources and can make decisions that can affect both teachers and
students. Administrators can also develop or modify policies, focus on new priorities, or allocate
30
funding to align with goals. Access to stakeholders can be obtained in several ways. The first
approach is to reach out to district leadership and identify a sponsor or advocate to assist with
outreach. Another method is to utilize the state’s department of education’s online directory,
which contains contact information for school districts and sites.
Interview and/or Focus Group Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1
The only interview criterion was that participants currently serve as a high school
principal, assistant principal, or district administrator with the ability to influence the allocation
of funding for the creation of new computer science courses, teacher hiring for these courses, or
professional development for teachers. Since the study focused on AP Computer Science, it is
important to gather data from those in a leadership role at the high school level.
Interview Sampling Strategy and Rationale
Interviews were targeted towards 10 high school principals, assistant principals, and
district administrators who make decisions related to computer science curriculum or teacher
hiring. These persons were targeted as the efforts and perspective of site leaders are needed to
support the district’s mission and vision as well as the administrator goal of increasing computer
science opportunities in the district. Johnson & Christensen (2015) recommends standardizing
the interview process when using a qualitative approach.
Explanation for Choices
Interviews were utilized for several reasons. With interviews, the researcher can use
probes or prompts to gain clarity or additional information (Johnson & Christensen, 2015).
Interviews allow the researcher to enter into the other person’s perspective, find out what is on
31
their mind, and gather stories (Patton, 2002). Finally, interviews were utilized since the method
of research was qualitative.
Documents were utilized for several reasons. Creswell (2014) stated that documents
enable a researcher to obtain the language and words of participants and represent data to which
participants have given attention. The documents chosen contain information related to the
research questions (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
There are other data collection methods that would not be suitable for this study. A
survey is a data collection tool comprised of a series of closed-ended questions (Robinson &
Leonard, 2019). Robinson and Leonard (2019) state surveys require limited resources, can
capture a large data set that can be easily analyzed, can be used across multiple sites, and can be
administered in different ways. However, for this study, surveys might not have captured
enough information to support data collection pertaining to the research questions. In addition,
the sample consisted of only 10 administrators. Observations entail how research participants act
in natural and structured environments (Johnson & Christensen, 2015), but this was not a
practical choice given that the district had very few computer science courses in place.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
This study utilized a qualitative data gathering and analysis methodology. CSAP USD’s
administrator’s current performance in relation to the organizational goal was assessed using
interviews and document analysis.
Interviews
Interviews were conducted in person before winter break at the administrator’s site. This
timing was appropriate because it was conducive to the academic calendar. Interviews were
conducted in English as this is the primary language of the respondents. All three areas of
32
knowledge, motivation, organizational (KMO) barriers model were addressed in the interview
protocol (Appendix A). Data were collected via a cross-sectional method at one point in time
(Creswell, 2014).
The interview instrument included 14 questions aligned to the research questions and the
conceptual framework of the study. Question design was semi-structured and included open-
ended questions. The conceptual framework includes considering the organization’s cultural
models and administrators’ assumed knowledge and motivation influences of factual and
procedural knowledge regarding teacher training and implementing successful computer science
programs as well as utility value and goal orientation to increase the number of qualified
computer science teachers at each school site.
Document Analysis
Public documents were collected via the district’s website. The primary documents
analyzed for this study support the district’s local control accountability plan (LCAP). Several
LCAP-related documents detail the district’s plan related to basic services and student
achievement. These elements support the problem of practice because basic services priorities
include appropriately assigned teachers. In addition, student achievement priorities include
college and career readiness, and an improved AP pass rate.
Data Analysis
Qualitative data analysis is a simultaneous, recursive, and dynamic process (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Analysis began while interviews were still being conducted based on what was
discovered. Interview responses were recorded and transcribed using an online tool. Data were
organized and stored on a password-protected local drive. Analytical memos were written after
each interview. Once interview responses were transcribed, data were cleaned and a codebook
33
was created. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) stated that data analysis is the process of making sense
out of data and making meaning, and this meaning constituted the findings of the study. To
begin to make meaning, coding (or categorizing) was used to organize and manage interview
data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). All coding was done manually by the researcher, and it is
important to note that this was an iterative process. First, open coding was used, which is the
process of tagging data relevant to the study and includes a priori and in vivo or empirical coding
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Next, axial coding was used, which is coding to relate categories
and properties to each other or grouping the open codes. This is also called analytical coding and
comes from interpretation and reflection on meaning (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Patterns and
themes that emerged were documented and used to develop findings. The following table
presents the timeline for the qualitative data analysis.
Table 4
Qualitative Analysis Timeline.
Data Source Phase of analysis Timeline
10 interviews Conduct and capture interview data (recorded). 1 week
10 interviews Transcribe using Otter.ai and clean up data. 2 weeks
10 interviews Create codebook template using Atlas.ti. 1 week
10 interviews Open coding (a priori & empirical). 2 weeks
10 interviews Axial /Analytical coding. 2 weeks
10 interviews Develop patterns & themes. 2 weeks
10 interviews Data sandwich / Findings. 2-3 weeks
Documents can help uncover meaning, develop understanding, and uncover insights
related to the research problem (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). LCAP related documents were
reviewed and analyzed prior to conducting interviews. Documents were analyzed to gather
descriptive information, support category creation, offer historical understanding, and track
change and development (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
34
Credibility and Trustworthiness
To increase and maintain credibility and trustworthiness, several strategies were used.
Respondent validation includes getting feedback about data and conclusions from people you are
studying (Maxwell, 2013). This approach was used by reviewing data and conclusions with
interviewees. Triangulation is collecting data from a variety of sources and methods (Maxwell,
2013). In this study, interviews from different high school sites within the district as well as
document analysis were utilized. This allowed for a better assessment of general explanations of
the research forms (Maxwell, 2013). An audit trail was provided so readers could authenticate
findings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The researcher’s position or reflexivity and a peer review
process were also included (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Finally, documents analyzed were
primary sources, authored by the district, and are public documents approved by the local county
office of education.
Ethics
This study involved human participants; thus, responsibilities with respect to involving
human participants were considered. Glesne (2015) cited several principles that institutional
review boards (IRBs) consider in the application process, such as ensuring participants have
enough information to choose whether to participate and the option to withdraw without penalty.
In this study, an information sheet (Appendix B) was presented at that start of data collection.
The sheet communicated that participation was voluntary, included aspects that may affect well-
being, and was allowed to cease at any point (Glesne, 2015). Data collection was conducted
with adult employees and the study was proposed to IRB as low-risk. Participants had a right to
privacy and to expect that their anonymity would be preserved when data were collected
(Glesne, 2015). The information sheet also indicated that the interview data would be recorded
35
as anonymous. It was presented before the interviews began and permission to record was also
obtained.
The study took place with school and district administrators at a public school district in
California. My relationship with the organization is that I work for a company that provides
technology hardware, professional development, and technical services to the district. I am not a
member of the organization, nor a leader or supervisor. I have limited experience with the
district that was the focus of the study. However, I do know district leaders characterize it a
“computer science district” and that they have some computer science programs in place. I have
also met some district leaders and principals. To minimize bias, data were triangulated using
multiple sources and methods (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations to the research include dependence on the respondents’ truthfulness and the
primary stakeholders’ representing a specific district in terms of enrollment numbers, locale, and
levels of experience. Delimitations are the size of the study, the number of interview questions,
and the documents analyzed. The study was conducted with only one K-12 public school district
and a small group of 10 interview participants. The interview instrument consisted of 14
questions specifically aligned to the assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this study utilized a qualitative data gathering and analysis methodology.
CSAP USD’s administrators’ current performance in relation to the organizational goal was
assessed using interviews and document analysis. The analysis focused on knowledge,
36
motivation, and organizational influences related to achieving the organizational goals. Chapter
Four will present the study’s results and findings.
37
Chapter Four: Findings
This case study evaluated the degree to which CSAP USD is meeting its goal to increase
student opportunities in the field of computer science. The qualitative analysis focused on
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences related to achieving the organizational
goals. The stakeholders of focus, district and site administrators who oversee high school
curriculum and computer science course development, were interviewed. Four questions guided
this study to address these administrators’ knowledge and skills, motivation, and organization
influences:
1. To what extent is CSAP USD meeting its goal to increase student opportunities in
the field of computer science?
2. What are the district and site administrator’s knowledge and motivation related to
increasing student opportunities in the field of computer science?
3. What is the interaction between CSAP USD culture and context and district and site
administrator’s knowledge and motivation?
4. What are the recommendations for organizational practice in the areas of knowledge,
motivation, and organizational resources?
Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholder population of focus consisted of CSAP USD district and site
administrators who lead high school sites: principals, assistant principals, and district
administrators. The project utilized a qualitative data gathering and analysis methodology.
Participants’ current performance in relation to the organizational goal was assessed using
interviews and document analysis.
38
Ten interviews were conducted with three district administrators, three high school
principals, and four assistant high school principals who make decisions related to computer
science curriculum or the hiring of computer science teachers. These persons were targeted
because the efforts and perspective of site leaders were needed to support the district’s mission
and vision as well as the administrator goals of increasing computer science opportunities in the
district and increasing the number of teachers qualified to teach computer science.
District administrators interviewed were the superintendent, the director of 21st century
learning and special projects, and the director of secondary education. All three high schools in
the district were represented in the interviews, as at least one principal and one assistant principal
from each of the sites was interviewed. One site had two assistant principals interviewed. All of
the participants held advanced degrees. Nine of the participants were male, and one was female.
Pseudonyms were used to represent them. The following table displays participants’
demographics, including titles, highest degree/education, and gender.
Figure 2. Interview participant data.
39
District Office
Superintendent
The superintendent has worked in public education for the past 30 years and has a
doctorate. He has been superintendent at CSAP USD for the past 5 years and has served as a
superintendent for 10 years. The superintendent began his career as a high school teacher and
then moved to dean of students, assistant principal, principal, and director of curriculum and
instruction. Prior to serving as a superintendent, he held the positions of deputy superintendent
and assistant superintendent of educational services. The superintendent is also a life-long
resident of the area served by the district.
Director of 21
st
Century Learning and Special Projects
The director of 21
st
century learning and special projects has been in the position for
about four years and has a doctorate. He was a site administrator for nearly 20 years, primarily
at the high school level, and was also a high school teacher, counselor, assistant principal and
then a principal in two different districts. He spent seven years as a high school principal. As a
high school principal, he focused on technology and was an early implementer of student device
one-to-one programs in Southern California. The director noted that the goal of his department
is that, while technology is an important structure of the district, it is most importantly an
educational tool that can accelerate learning, close the achievement and equity gap, and close the
digital divide in terms of student access to technology.
Director of Curriculum and Instruction for Secondary Education
The director of curriculum and instruction for secondary education (grades 6–12) has
been in the position for a year and a half and is currently in a doctoral program. She works
primarily with secondary schools on curriculum initiatives, including computer science and
40
computer science immersion. Prior to that, she was a high school principal and a high school
assistant principal. In those two roles, she had a window into high school curriculum, building
curriculum, mapping sequences of courses, and supporting pathways. She has also done some
work with course writing and course math to support computer science at the secondary level.
High School Site A
Principal
The principal of High School Site A has been in the role for 3 years, has been an
administrator for 6 years, and has a master’s degree. He has been an employee of CSAP USD
for approximately 16 years and started as a teacher and then moved on to administration.
Assistant Principal
The assistant principal of High School Site A has been in the role for 3 years and has a
doctorate. He is focused on curriculum and instruction and was previously a teacher on special
assignment and an instructional coach for lesson design. He has a background in STEM, and his
dissertation research examined equity and access.
High School Site B
Principal
The principal of High School Site B has been the principal for 2 years and has a
doctorate. Prior to that, he was an assistant principal in charge of curriculum and instruction and
has been in the district for 20 years.
Assistant Principal
The assistant principal of High School Site B has been in the role for a year and holds a
doctorate. His current role focuses on curriculum, and, prior to that, he worked at the district
41
office as a program specialist who oversaw all of the technology and coding initiatives
throughout the district.
Assistant principal
The other assistant principal of High School Site B has been in the role for 2 years and is
currently in a doctoral program. In the previous 4 years, he worked at the district office as a
program specialist in special education and has been with the district for 22 years.
High School Site C
Principal
The principal of High School Site C has been in the role for 5 years and has a doctorate.
His role includes overseeing the curriculum, professional development, and school safely. He
has been an administrator for over 10 years in the district.
Assistant Principal
The assistant principal of High School Site C has been in the role for 5 years and has a
master’s degree. His role includes master schedule planning, professional development,
overseeing various departments, and the teachers. He has been with the district for 6 years.
Pseudonyms were used for the participants. The following table displays these
pseudonyms and their respective titles and locations.
Table 5
Participant Pseudonyms
Pseudonym Title Location
Robert Superintendent District Office
James Director of 21
st
Century Learning and
Special Projects
District Office
Joy Director of Curriculum and Instruction for
Secondary Education
District Office
Keith Principal High School Site A
John Assistant Principal High School Site A
42
Pseudonym Title Location
Michael Principal High School Site B
Brian Assistant Principal High School Site B
Raymond Assistant Principal High School Site B
Mark Principal High School Site C
Ronald Assistant Principal High School Site C
Findings
This section will examine the findings in each of the KMO domains. In each section,
assumed influences will be reported as validated if the majority of participants did not provide
evidence in their responses to address respective KMO gaps. Findings address the research
questions.
Knowledge Findings
Krathwohl (2002) defined the knowledge dimensions as factual, conceptual, procedural,
and metacognitive. Factual knowledge includes facts, and basic information specific to
disciplines, contexts, or domains (Rueda, 2011). Conceptual knowledge is knowledge of
categories, classifications, and structures (Rueda, 2011). Procedural knowledge is how to do
something, and metacognitive knowledge is awareness of one’s own cognition (Krathwohl,
2002). Table 6 presents a list of assumed knowledge influences. The knowledge types are
declarative (factual) and procedural for the assumed influences on CSAP USDs goal of preparing
students for college and career as well as the stakeholder goal of increasing the number of
qualified computer science teachers at each school site.
43
Table 6
Knowledge Influences
Knowledge Influence Validated as a Gap?
Administrators need knowledge of what training
opportunities are available for teachers in computer
science.
Not Validated
Administrators need to know how to implement
successful computer science training programs for
teachers.
Not Validated
Participant’s Knowledge of Training Opportunities Available for Teachers in Computer
Science
All participants were able to relate knowledge of these programs, including specific
programs ones in their district. Interview participants shared various specific teacher training
programs related to computer science. Robert stated the district has computer science-specific
pathways and, in grades 9–12, teacher training covers specialized computer science. James
shared teacher training programs included Code.org training via boot camps and training from
Apple Inc. Joy discussed the high schools’ components of computer science in their pathways,
some more robust than others, as well as additional options. She mentioned training offered via a
third-party company called Tech Smart. She cited teachers going to in-services over the summer
and that follow-up took place with additional days of training. She also said that there is AP
Computer Science training that teachers can attend for the Advanced Placement Principles
course and Computer Science A.
Keith said his school site defines computer science in terms of course offerings and
pathways, which depend on different partnerships, personnel, student interest, and student
choices. He said the partnership with Tech Smart to offer a Math One course through coding
allows math to be taught through a different lens to increase engagement, grit, persistence,
44
perseverance, and lead to more student success in math. At High School Site B, Michael
mentioned the same opportunities discussed by Keith, and Brian noted the district’s coding
initiative. The initiative provides dedicated computer science courses, an AP course, and a
computer science/math combination course.
Raymond said the University of Southern California provided a week-long summer
institute for teachers. He also said training from Tech Smart Kids provided a boot camp and
almost 90 hours of scaffolded training for teachers on pedagogy, lesson curriculum build-up,
lesson modification that gives teachers the ability to actually teach computer science. Lastly, he
said the district has run summer boot camps at his site for 4 years.
At High School Site C, Mark cited professional development conferences and reaching
out businesses as resources. He discussed a partnership with Amazon and said they have tried to
find examples of what computer science looks like in the real world. He said the computer
science teacher is working through this Amazon partnership with JPL to help code a Mars rover
kit. He cited this as an example of trying to find “a balance of the academic, the practical, and the
professional, mixed together.”
Given the experience of the district and site administrators, and being in the fourth year
of the district’s coding initiative, all participants demonstrated specific knowledge of training
programs available. Several partnerships played a key role in providing various training
opportunities. Figure 2 presents a list of the different types of training opportunities available for
teachers that participants mentioned. The figure also indicates the number of times each type of
training was mentioned. Since all participants were able to relate knowledge of teacher training
programs, the factual knowledge gap was not validated.
45
Figure 3. Participant’s knowledge of teacher training opportunities in computer science.
Participant’s Knowledge of How to Implement Computer Science Training Programs for
Teachers
To evaluate procedural knowledge, participants were asked to describe the existing plans
for offering computer science training for teachers at their district or school site. All participants
were able to relate knowledge of such plans. At the district level, one example of a training plan
was related to computer science integration into math. Joy said that the district's main supplier
of computer science professional development is Tech Smart and that the district schedules out
days approximately a year ahead of time with this company. James said this model included a
summer boot camp with ongoing follow-up and training. Joy added that, after the teachers are
trained, they have site support that takes place quarterly.
Brian said that his site is following a program from the district, and the district takes the
lead with the computer science training. Mark, stated there is much autonomy and that the
superintendent very much believes that the principal is the expert on the site. He said the district
provides support and there are companies that the district and sites have partnered with. At High
46
School Site C, Ronald stated that at the site they have maneuvered through several partnerships
that have led to training with and for the high schools.
One hundred percent of participants were able to relate knowledge of either district or site
plans for how to implement a training plan computer science teachers. Therefore, the procedural
knowledge gap was not validated.
Motivation Findings
Motivation is the process of instigating and sustaining goal-directed activity (Rueda,
2011). Motivation is the second critical factor cited by Clark and Estes (2008) in conducting a
gap analysis. Utility value is how useful a person believes a task is for achieving the goal
(Rueda, 2011). Goal orientation focuses on the purpose of engaging in achievement behaviors
(Rueda, 2011). To evaluate the motivation influence of utility value of offering computer science
training for teachers, participants were asked about the importance of computer science training
for teachers, and how they demonstrate that this is important. To evaluate the motivation
influence of goal orientation of exceeding the bare minimum of college and career readiness
goals, participants were first asked to share their college and career readiness goals for the
district or site. They were also asked how important it is for them to continue to learn about
different ways to implement computer science courses and programs from other aspirational
sites. Table 7 presents a list of assumed motivation influences. The motivation influences
presented in Table 7 include utility value and goal orientation for the assumed influences for
CSAP USDs goal of preparing students for college and career as well as the stakeholder goal of
increasing the number of qualified computer science teachers at each school site.
47
Table 7
Motivation Influences
Assumed Motivation Influence Validated as a Gap?
Utility Value – Administrators need to see the
value of offering computer science training for
teachers.
Not Validated
Goal Orientation – Administrators should want to
do more than the bare minimum and go beyond
showing to district administration that they are
exceeding the base requirements for college and
career readiness.
Not Validated
Administrators Need to See the Value of Offering Computer Science Training for Teachers
The majority of participants saw the value in offering computer science training for
teachers. At the district level, Robert stated that it is “imperative” that computer science training
is provided for teachers, and this initiative is one of several non-negotiables in the district. James
stated that offering computer science training is “very important for me.” He added that one way
administrators demonstrate this is important is that they attend the training also and “walk the
walk when it comes to the development with the teachers and the learning with the teachers.” He
said that administrators make sure they provide the resources for all the teachers so they have
what they need. Joy agreed:
By ensuring that we communicate with our teachers, we clear the way for them to get to
these trainings. If there's some sort of barrier that's preventing them or that they need
extra support to get where they're going, we have to provide that. So it's definitely a
priority. This is a non-negotiable, and if, as a principal or admin, you're not going to
support it, then you're pretty much in the wrong place. And you also show it by clearing
the way and finding the resources.
48
At High School Site A, John said he would be present in computer science classrooms,
and added that computer science training is very important because it can grow teachers’
knowledge in the subject and it also shows a form of a growth mindset. He said that, in terms of
administrators’ demonstrating the importance, this would include one-on-one conversations with
the teachers and students as well as being visible in the classrooms. In addition, he said funding
opportunities to increase opportunities for students to take computer science also demonstrates
importance. Keith said that “constant communication and constant resource allocation shows
that it's important to people.”
At High School Site B, Michael stated that hiring teachers who have a computer science
background and the fact that the district offers a full-time slot that can be used to hire for
computer science demonstrates the importance of the computer science skills that teachers need.
He added that he demonstrates importance by showing up for part of the computer science
training for the teachers. Raymond added that computer science is as important as all other core
classes. At High School Site C, Mark said that he has always believed that you have to walk the
walk and talk the talk. Ronald added that he demonstrates value for teachers by providing
resources, such as sending their computer science teacher to a global conference and investing in
materials such as a Mars rover that students could produce.
Since the majority of participants expressed the value in offering computer science
training for teachers, the motivational utility value gap was not validated.
49
Administrators Should Want to Do More Than the Bare Minimum and Go Beyond Showing to
District Administration That They Are Exceeding the Base Requirements for College and
Career Readiness
Participants cited several areas that relate to college and career readiness goals, including
offering pathways and certifications, college admission requirements, and AP courses. James
mentioned a lofty goal of having all students complete a computer science AP course. Robert
and Joy emphasized that pathways support college and career readiness. James discussed
aspirations:
I would say this is this is a lofty goal, but it's a good goal, we would like to see all of our
high school students taking an Advanced Placement, computer science principles class at
some point in their career.
Joy said that for college and career, the district has a major focus on creating college career
pathways for students. Michael stated that their school goals for college and career readiness are
tied to students meeting college admission requirements and having as many pathways as
possible. Raymond associated college and career readiness goals at his site with pathways.
Participants were also asked how important it is for them to continue to learn about
different ways to implement computer science courses and programs from other aspirational
sites. Robert, James, and Ronald stated it was imperative, hugely important, and very important
for them to do so. Joy said that other districts tend to come to them for advice or experiential
knowledge as they are on the leading edge of implementing computer science.
A recurring theme was collaboration. Keith said he is constantly communicating with
other schools and districts. Raymond said he collaborated with other assistant superintendents,
and John said he does so with other assistant principals. Brian stated that all three of the high
50
schools are very well connected and each site has its strengths in various areas. Raymond stated
he has teamed up with local districts including some of their assistant superintendents on how
they implementing programs. Mark said he has great district support as well as support from the
other two high schools.
Since the majority of participants related collaboration with other aspirational sites,
various goals, and a broad depth of programs available related to college and career readiness,
the motivational gap of goal orientation was not validated.
Organizational Findings
The lack of efficient and effective organizational work processes and materials is the
third cause of performance gaps identified by Clark and Estes (2008) and is also affected by
organizational culture. Cultural models are tools for the mind that develop over time and
represent shared and familiar ways of thinking (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). To evaluate the
cultural model of trust in the school and district between administrators and the teachers,
participants were asked how the district defines computer science and to describe the culture at
the district or site with regards to this subject. In addition, participants were asked how teachers
responded to new initiatives at the district or site, to describe a recent example, and how teachers
might react if new computer science courses were added in the next school year.
Cultural settings are shared mental schema of how the world works and includes
behavioral and cognitive components (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). To evaluate the cultural
setting influence of teachers needing time off from their non-teaching responsibilities to receive
training on integrating computer science into their courses, participants were asked to describe
the support teachers receive when new initiatives are rolled out and to provide an example. In
addition, participants were asked how much training time computer science teachers have and
51
whether the teachers feel they have enough time. To evaluate the cultural setting that teachers
need effective role models within the institution who have integrated computer science into
courses, participants were asked if the teachers know other teachers they could turn to ask how
they have integrated computer science into their courses.
Table 8 presents a list of assumed organizational influences. The organizational
influences presented in Table 8 include cultural models and cultural settings for the assumed
influences.
Table 8
Assumed Organizational Influences
Assumed Organizational Influences Validated as a Gap?
Cultural Model Influence 1:
There needs to be a culture of trust in the school between
administrators and the teachers in order to achieve the
institutional goal of integrating computer science into teaching.
Not validated
Cultural Setting Influence 1:
Teachers need enough time from their non-teaching
responsibilities in order to have time to receive training to
integrate computer science into their courses.
Not validated
Cultural Setting Influence 2:
Teachers need effective role models within the institution who
have integrated computer science into courses.
Not validated
There Needs to Be a Culture of Trust in the School Between Administrators and the Teachers
in Order to Achieve the Institutional Goal of Integrating Computer Science into Teaching
Participants expressed various definitions of computer science. James said the primary
goal of the district is coding, but added that he felt it meant an “umbrella” of subjects including
hardware components. Keith connected computer science to real-world applications and careers.
Raymond described computer science as the three components of software development, a game
experience, and app development. Mark said that trying to define computer science was
challenging.
52
The majority of participants indicated the culture related to computer science was
positive and connected this fact to the district’s providing purpose and value behind the
initiative. In addition, when asked about how teachers respond to new initiatives or new
computer science courses, the majority of participants stated that they would be fine with it as
long as the why was provided, it benefits students, they are included in the planning process, and
they are supported through the change. Brian said teachers have developed a comfort level, they
understand the importance of it and are starting to see the academic gains. Brian added that
teachers understand computer science lessons, how to implement their power, how they
intertwine with the current classroom standards, and the importance of the subject. James
summarized participants’ general feelings on this subject:
I think we have a very forward-thinking culture when it comes to computer science with
our student population. I think our teachers have really embraced the idea that computers
are part of the educational experience and, and with correct application, they can really
help students achieve more and create a lot of things like social agency. They can create
greater opportunity for students. They can give students a better perspective on the world
around them. So there's also important components to what technology can do for
students.
In addition, participants were asked how teachers responded to new initiatives at the
district or site, to describe a recent example, and how teachers might react if new computer
science courses were added in the next school year. Robert stated, regarding the coding
initiative, that there was very little pushback from the teachers over time. James said that
teachers have a lot on their plate, but the teaching staff is strong and the most important thing the
district has to do is provide the why for the teachers and provide support. Raymond stated there
53
is “always hesitancy on new initiatives but that said teachers want to hear that initiatives are
sustainable and good for kids.” Mark said change is challenging for teachers, and there have
been many new initiatives in the district, but people are willing to buy-in if they know initiatives
are proven and research-based. Additionally, Joy provided an example of teachers self-selecting
to be part of a Math and coding combination course. These teachers had choice in the initiative,
which contributed to its success.
Most participants described the culture related to computer science as positive. Thus, the
organizational gap related to needing to have a culture of trust in the school between
administrators and the teachers to achieve the institutional goal of integrating computer science
into teaching was not validated.
Teachers Need Enough Time From Their Non-Teaching Responsibilities in Order to Have
Time to Receive Training to Integrate Computer Science Into Their Courses
The majority of participants described sufficient training time and various support
options in the district for teachers related to computer science, including access to third party
companies, coaches, trainers, digital or virtual resources, phone support, and professional
development opportunities followed up by embedded coaching. Robert stated there are experts
at pretty much every school who are assets and have become trainers. James described ongoing
district-wide professional development, embedded coaching, and developing a train-the-trainer
model. Joy described a high school boot camp model which consisted of initial days of training
in the summer, followed up with additional days of training throughout the school year. Brian
said the district partnered with agencies that provide expert training. James, Joy, Keith, Brian,
and Raymond all mentioned coaching in the classrooms.
54
When participants were asked how much training time computer science teachers have
and whether the teachers feel they have enough of it, the consensus was that both time and
training are sufficient. Raymond said that teachers get around 80 to 90 hours of training from the
boot camp. He said teachers work with the coaches to get additional training on the spot. The
majority of participants described sufficient training time and various support options in the
district for teachers, so the organizational gap related to the cultural setting that teachers need
enough time from their non-teaching responsibilities to have time to receive training to integrate
computer science into their courses was not validated.
Teachers Need Effective Role Models Within the Institution Who Have Integrated Computer
Science Into Courses
Overall, participants stated that teachers have several role models and teachers they can
turn to. Robert said that teachers have others they can turn to inside the district. They also utilize
outside organizations. In addition, computer science stipends are offered to all the schools to add
mentors.
Michael said teachers likely look mostly outside of the district, and teachers have mentors
when they go to training. Mark offered a personal example in that the high school computer
science teacher at his site feels like a lone wolf at times, but he has made contacts outside of the
district from other high schools. Similarly, Brian said the group of high school teachers that
work together in the area of computer science is relatively small, but they do meet and share
ideas.
James added the teachers are also involved in the CUE organization and the local chapter
of CUE, and John stated that the new computer science teacher at his site was able to utilize
Tech Smart and other teachers for support. Brian said there is a relatively small group of
55
teachers amongst the three high schools who do meet periodically but he did not know that they
have access to a mentor who is an industry expert.
Since the majority of participants at the district said teachers definitely have others they
can turn to in the district and they can also utilize outside organizations, the organizational gap
related to cultural setting that teachers need to have effective role models within the institution
who have integrated computer science into courses was not validated.
Document Analysis
The following documents were reviewed to support the organizational goal of increasing
computer science opportunities at the high school level and the stakeholder goal of increasing the
number of qualified teachers to teach computer science: the LCAP 2019–2020, LCAP Points of
Interest, and LCAP Priorities.
The following matrix aligned to the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
was used for document analysis and to track the occurrence and context of associated keywords
in the district’s LCAP for 2019–2020. It should be noted that the LCAP Points of Interest and
LCAP Priorities documents were very brief summaries of information found in the full LCAP
2019–2020 document.
Table 9
Document Analysis Matrix of Key Words
Terms LCAP
Document
LCAP Points
of Interest
LCAP Priorities
Computer science 54 0 0
Training (computer science or coding) 3 0 0
Professional Development (computer
science or coding)
16 0 0
College & Career 83 0 2
Advanced Placement 12 0 1
A-G 47 0 1
Technology 92 0 0
56
Culture 13 0 0
New courses 1 0 0
Mentors 3 0 0
Dashboard 24 0 0
Coding 54 0 0
Equity 8 0 0
Review of the LCAP 2019–2020 document found that the district received wide acclaim
for innovative educational programs and that a continued focus is to “Guarantee all students are
eligible and ready for college and career upon graduation.” Specific actions to support this goal
included expanding computer science pathways and AP courses. In addition, the district planned
to increase articulation with a local university’s computer science and mathematics department.
The TK-12 Computer Science Immersion initiative will also be expanded at the high school level
by the continued integration of computer science in Math 1 and 2 and expanded computer
science courses through the Cisco and Microsoft Academies. Additional highlights were the
focus on college and career readiness, which resulted in a high school graduation rate of 98.7%.
In addition, the percentage of high school students meeting college admission requirements
increased, and there were increased participation and passage rates in AP courses. Finally, many
teachers were earning additional credentials in CTE. Information found in the LCAP documents
supported the KMO findings of no gaps in any of the assumed stakeholder influences.
Additional Findings
Two themes that fell outside of the KMO influences were identified and will be discussed
in this section. Those themes are addressing equity and diversity to increase student opportunities
in computer science and using student support measures to impact organizational practice and
student choice related to computer science.
57
Theme 1: Addressing Equity and Diversity in Computer Science
Leaders at this district state theirs is a computer science or coding immersion district,
which means that every student codes nearly every day. However, at the high school level,
participants indicated there is still a gender gap in that few females enroll in computer science
courses. Ronald said narrowing this gap is a struggle. There is open access and no barriers in the
district, but the problem is the lack of students’ interest. Robert said that efforts to increase
equity include having girls and minorities involved in an engineering pathway program that
started in middle school and now includes one of the high schools and provides a specific
pathway for female engineers. Joy said that the district is also strategic with marketing
materials, which include girls and underrepresented populations. She said the district has to
strategically recruit so that underrepresented students or girls become aware of computer science
as a possible pursuit.
Keith said that, to address equity and diversity, it is important for counselors to be
cognizant and aware of discrepancies. He gave an example of AP Computer Science Principles,
where there may be 60 students, of whom 56 may be males. He added that it is important to
have conversations with students and for trusted adults in the district to believe in the students,
and encourage them to follow the computer science pathway.
Theme 2: Using Data to Inform Student Choice
Another theme was the critical role that high school counselors play using data to inform
student choice. Participants described using student support measures to direct organizational
practice and student choice related to computer science. James, Keith, John, and Mark said that
utilizing student data such as enrollment trends, AP scores, the AP potential letter, PSAT scores
58
and predictive analysis, SAT school day, and conversations with counselors encourage students
to enroll in computer science courses.
Keith explained this process in further detail and said the AP potential letter includes
information from the College Board that is based on PSAT scores and an algorithm to best
predict courses in which students will be successful. He said that every student who matches to
AP Computer Science Principles is encouraged to enroll. Counselors also encourage students to
select those courses by talking with each student and, possibly, their parents. Counselors’ use of
student data provides critical encouragement and support for students to choose computer
science courses and be successful in them.
Conclusion
This chapter presented the results and findings of the interviews and document analysis
as they related to the research questions. Because the district is in the fourth year of a computer
science immersion initiative, leaders have had time to mature and refine their practices related to
it. This effort has resulted in no gaps found pertaining to the KMO assumed influences. Two
additional themes emerged during the interviews regarding equity and diversity and using data to
inform student choice to enroll in computer science courses. The next chapter will present a
discussion based on the results and findings.
59
Chapter Five: Discussion
The purpose of this project was to evaluate the degree to which CSAP USD is meeting its
goal to increase student opportunities in the field of computer science. The analysis centered on
KMO influences on achieving the organizational goal of increasing student opportunities in the
field of computer science through computer science AP course offerings and enrollment and
increasing the number of students passing the computer science AP exam by 100% by 2022. This
study found no gaps through qualitative analysis of the KMO assumed influences. Given the
positive practices and outcomes detailed in Chapter Four, this chapter discusses effective
practices identified in the data that may be transferable and applied at other educational
organizations.
Transferrable Practices
As the district is in year four of a multi-year plan, district and school leaders at CSAP
USD have had time to mature and refine their practices related to the computer science
immersion initiative. While the study began as an evaluation study during the first year of the
district’s coding initiative, the study evolved into a study examining highly effective practices
based on the district’s significant progress on their goals in the last several years . Interviews
and document analysis were conducted in the fourth year of the district’s initiative, and as a
result, there are a number of practices with the potential to support the development of similar
programs and initiatives. The following section describes transferrable practices may help
districts and schools develop computer science immersion opportunities for their students
through the establishment of a clear vision, branding the initiative, creating strong partnerships,
providing ongoing professional development, giving teachers autonomy in the implementation
process, and integrating computer science into core subject areas.
60
Transferrable Practice 1: Establish and Communicate a Clear Vision for Computer
Science Goals
Clark and Estes (2008) stated it was essential to have a clear vision, goals, and ways to
measure progress to help address organizational barriers. Effective change begins by addressing
motivation influencers to ensure the group knows why it needs to change. Administrators need
both vision and a plan to support teachers’ efforts to use technology in the classroom (Ertmer et
al., 2002). They shape the school’s culture by developing and communicating the vision,
garnering support for it, and inspiring others to attain it (Ertmer et al., 2002). Communication
regarding plans and progress should be consistent and candid (Clark & Estes, 2008).
To build trust, administrators at CSAP USD communicated to stakeholders the urgency
of providing computer science opportunities for high school students and compelling evidence
for change to garner a solid base of support. The superintendent stated that, for the district’s
coding initiative, teachers were told the purpose, including that most students will experience
coding whether in private industry or college. Also, when the district’s declining enrollment was
considered, the coding initiative was used to capture new students and protect the district
financially as well as protect teaching positions. In addition, the director of curriculum and
instruction for secondary education stated that district leaders understood that computer science
was a non-negotiable or essential priority of the district. Other educational organizations may
benefit from this model of direct communication from leadership to illustrate the value of the
computer science initiative to the district’s stakeholders.
Transferrable Practice 2: Brand the Initiative
Branding is fundamental to organizational success, and school branding is a unique
attractor to parents and students (Chang, 2013). A school brand encompasses its culture,
61
atmosphere, and mindset and generally includes quality, positioning, repositioning,
communication, a long-term perspective, and internal marketing (Chang, 2013). Branding is an
investment to compete effectively for students, parents, and faculty (Chang, 2013).
The superintendent said the tagline of the district is “Code is our second language.”
Interview participants also said the district identifies itself as a coding or computer science
immersion district. Branding influences how parents and students perceive the school and, in
turn, drives enrollment (DiMartino & Jessen, 2016). The superintendent said that there are
currently 17% or 18% of student enrollment is from outside the district. Other educational
organizations may benefit from this practice of branding to clearly name and identify the
initiative.
Transferrable Practice 3: Create Strong Partnerships in Computer Science Training for
Teachers
Effective change efforts ensure that everyone has the resources (equipment, personnel,
time) needed to do their job and that, if there are resource shortages, then resources are aligned
with organizational priorities (Clark & Estes, 2008). Goode and Margolis (2011) stated that
quality computer science teachers are critical for secondary computing education, yet many do
not have formal computer science training or opportunities to grow and stay committed (Ni &
Guzdial, 2012). For these reasons, many K-12 school districts must rely on third-party
organizations to provide training.
CSAP USD has built several strategic partnerships in this area, which was reflected in the
knowledge administrators shared about these programs. Interview participants said partnerships
played a key role in providing training opportunities for teachers. Other educational
62
organizations may benefit from this practice of forging strong partnerships in the area of
computer science training for teachers.
Transferrable Practice 4: Provide Ongoing Computer Science Professional Development
for Teachers, Including Embedded Coaching
Yadav, Hong, and Stephenson (2016) stated it is important to provide professional
development for teachers to achieve the goal of computational thinking for all and that this effort
requires buy-in from administrators to provide the necessary resources and tools for teachers. To
prepare teachers to teach computer science, the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)
K-12 Taskforce recommended teacher preparation, including mastery of the domain (Tucker,
2003). Further, Hew and Brush (2007) recommend training that focuses on content, gives
teachers opportunities for hands-on work, and is consistent with the teachers’ needs. Schraw and
McCrudden (2006) state that, to develop mastery, individuals must acquire component skills,
practice integrating them, and know when to apply what they have learned. This can be
accomplished by providing experiences that help people make sense of the material rather than
focus on memorization and modeling effective strategy use (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006).
CSAP USD had a professional development model that incorporates ongoing training and
embedded coaching, which includes modeling by other teachers who have been successful in the
subject area. Embedded coaching gives teachers the opportunity for hands-on experience,
practice, application, and modeling. Other educational organizations may benefit from this
model of providing teachers ongoing computer science professional development with embedded
coaching.
63
Transferrable Practice 5: Give Teachers Autonomy in the Implementation Process
A study of 300 teachers in Florida in 2005 found that as general teacher autonomy
increases, so does professionalism and empowerment (Pearson & Moomaw, 2005). The teaching
autonomy factor was consistent with teachers’ needing to have control over their work and
decision making authority to stay committed to their profession (Pearson & Moomaw, 2005).
Interview participants shared an example of a math and coding combination course into which
teachers self-selected; the teachers appreciated being part of the course’s curriculum
development. Another participant also said that it was important for the district to support
teachers by requesting their feedback and suggestions. Other educational organizations may
benefit from this practice of giving teachers autonomy in the implementation process.
Transferrable Practice 6: Integrate Computer Science into Core Subjects
Computer science education is based on the higher categories of Bloom’s taxonomy and
prepares students for a competitive world (Gal-Ezer & Stephenson, 2014). The ACM projected
the field of as a technology-oriented discipline with roots in math and engineering and
emphasized that it is not just programming (Denning et al., 1989). Math proficiency contributes
to better performance in computer science, as it helps students understand relationships in data,
computations, and algorithms, as well as problem solving and good design (Beaubouef & Mason,
2005).
Interview participants stated the district rolled out a math and coding combination high
school course which allowed math to be taught through a different lens to increase engagement,
grit, persistence, perseverance, and success in math. An interview participant said the intent was
for every student in Math 1 to experience coding and move on to AP Computer Science. In
addition, at the district level, participants expressed the desire to integrate computer science into
64
more core content areas in the longer term. The integration of computer science into core
academic subjects may also enable school districts to maintain student exposure to computer
science during the current state of wide-spread online instruction. While this approach broadens
student participation with the inclusion of computer science into a core subject, school leadership
should also be mindful of additional support provided to various student subgroups, particularly
under represented or low income students. Other educational organizations may benefit from this
practice of integrating computer science into core subject areas.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach
All methodological approaches have strengths and weaknesses, including the Clark and
Estes (2008) framework. Examining KMO factors through Clark and Estes’ framework was
effective in evaluating CSAP USD’s goals. Several critical administrators in the district are
familiar with the KMO framework through their own doctoral programs, so utilizing this
framework enabled further discussion by the district using a common language. Since having
enough qualified teachers is only one part of the problem related to increasing student
opportunities in computer science, it is important to consider other ways to analyze this problem.
While this study centered on administrators as the primary stakeholder, additional perspectives
from students and teachers would likely provide added value and diverse perspectives.
Additional studies require resources, but, since many administrators and teachers are pursuing or
have earned advanced degrees, internal resources could be utilized. Approaching the problem
from these additional perspectives would provide more comprehensive and actionable data.
Limitations and Delimitations
This study was limited primarily by size. The study was limited to one district in
California and utilized a qualitative approach. In addition, the district’s KMO-related practices
65
have matured since the study began. The utilization of surveys to quantify and confirm
qualitative results could have added to the study. Also, including additional stakeholders, such
as teachers and students, could have provided more diverse perspectives. Transferrable practices
could be utilized by other public or private educational organizations. This would be especially
helpful at a local or county level, as CSAP USD has one of the earliest adoptions of computer
science district-wide in the state. The size and demographics of the district are a factor, but the
recommendations and transferrable practices could likely be scaled up in larger districts and
applied with students of various demographics.
Future Research
Future research could involve student and teacher perspectives. Research on results
measuring both student and teacher progress and success over time could be valuable for the
stakeholders of the organization. Additional research related to the gender gap in high school
computer science courses could also be considered.
Conclusion
This study used Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework to examine KMO theory
to expand computer science opportunities for students by increasing the number of qualified
teachers. This study utilized interviews and document analysis. There were no gaps found in the
qualitative analysis of KMO assumed influences. Transferrable practices were establishing a
clear vision, branding the initiative, creating strong partnerships, providing ongoing professional
development, giving teachers autonomy in the implementation process, and integrating computer
science into core subject areas.
66
References
Association for Computing Machinery. (2019). About the ACM organization.
https://www.acm.org/about-acm/about-the-acm-organization
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
Bae, S., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2014). Recognizing college and career readiness in the
California school accountability system. Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in
Education.
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? Inroads – The
SIGCSE Bulletin, 2(1), 48–54.
Beaubouef, T., & Mason, J. (2005). Why the high attrition rate for computer science students:
Some thoughts and observations. Inroads – The SIGCSE Bulletin, 37(2), 103–106.
Ben-Ari, M. (1998). Constructivism in computer science education. Inroads – The SIGCSE
Bulletin, 30(1).
Beyer, S., Rynes, K., Perrault, J., Hay, K., & Haller, S. (2003). Gender differences in computer
science students. Inroads – The SIGCSE Bulletin, 35(1), 9–53.
Biggers, M., Brauer, A., & Yilmaz, T. (2008, March). Student perceptions of computer science:
A retention study comparing graduating seniors with CS leavers. Inroads – The SIGCSE
Bulletin, 40(1), 402–406.
Bowman, D. D. (2018). Declining Talent in Computer Related Careers. Journal of Academic
Administration in Higher Education, 14(1), 1–4.
67
California Department of Education. (2018a). California adopts first-ever computer science
standards. https://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr18/yr18rel56.asp
California Department of Education. (2018b). Computer science education.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/be/st/ss/computerscicontentstds.asp
California Department of Education. (2018c). CTE model curriculum standards.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ct/sf/ctemcstandards.asp
California Department of Education. (2018d). CTE model curriculum standards.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ct/sf/documents/infocomtech.pdf
California Department of Education. (2019a). Career technical education.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ct/index.asp
California Department of Education. (2019b). CTE general public fact sheet.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/ci/ct/gi/ctegeneralfacts.asp
California School Dashboard. (2019). District performance overview.
https://www.caschooldashboard.org/reports/19644360000000/2019#college-career-card
California School Dashboard. (2020). Frequently asked questions.
https://www.caschooldashboard.org/about/faq
Camp, T. (2012). ‘Computing, we have a problem…’ Inroads – The SIGCSE Bulletin, 3(4), 34–
40.
Campbell, P. F., & McCabe, G. P. (1984). Predicting the success of freshmen in a computer
science major. Communications of the ACM, 27(11), 1108–1113.
Carter, L. (2006). Why students with an apparent aptitude for computer science don’t choose to
major in computer science. Inroads – The SIGCSE Bulletin, 38(1), 27–31.
68
Chang, Y. Y. C. (2013). Does school branding matter in secondary education.
http://210.59.19.199/mediafile/4170016/fdownload/550/1349/2013-2-1-11-51-23-1349-
nf1.pdf
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age.
Code.org. (2017). California fact sheet. https://code.org/advocacy/state-facts/CA.pdf
Code.org. (2020a). 2019 state of computer science education equity and diversity.
https://advocacy.code.org/2019_state_of_cs.pdf
Code.org. (2020b). More data and talking points for advocacy.
https://code.org/promote/morestats
Code.org. (2020c). Support K-12 computer science education in California.
https://code.org/advocacy/state-facts/CA.pdf
Cohoon, J. M. (2001). Toward improving female retention in the computer science major.
Communications of the ACM, 44(5), 108–114.
College Board. (2007). AP students in college: An analysis of five-year academic careers
http://research.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/publications/2012/7/researchreport200
7-4-ap-students-college-analysis-five-year-academic-careers.pdf
College Board. (2015). National and State summary report [Data file].
http://research.collegeboard.org/programs/ap/data
College Board. (2018a). AP at a glance. https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/about-ap/ap-a-glance
College Board. (2018b). AP Computer Science A.
https://apstudent.collegeboard.org/apcourse/ap-computer-science-a
69
College Board. (2018c). AP computer science principles.
https://apstudent.collegeboard.org/apcourse/ap-computer-science-principles
College Board. (2018d). Start and grow AP. https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/about-ap/start-
grow-ap?%7Chome=&%7Capc-growap=&affiliateId=/start-grow-
ap?affiliateId=ap%7Chome&bannerId=heroc2%7Capc-growap&bannerId=heroc2
College Board. (2019a). About us. https://www.collegeboard.org/about
College Board. (2019b). AP program. https://ap.collegeboard.org
Conley, D. (2014). What are the four keys to college and career readiness? [Digital image] at
https://collegeready.epiconline.org/portal/public/information/fourkeysimready
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. SAGE.
Cuny, J. (2012). Transforming high school computing: A call to action. ACM Inroads, 3(2), 32–
36.
Curry, W., MacDonald, W., & Morgan, R. (1999). The Advanced Placement program: Access to
excellence. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 11(1), 17–23.
Denning, P. J., Comer, D. E., Gries, D., Mulder, M. C., Tucker, A., Turner, J., & Young P. R.
(1989). Computing as a discipline. Computer, 22(2), 63–70.
Denning, P. J., & McGettrick, A. (2005). Recentering computer science. Communications of the
ACM, 48(11), 15–19. https://doi.org/10.1145/1096000.1096018
Dettori, L., Greenberg, R. I., McGee, S., & Reed, D. (2016). The impact of the exploring
computer science instructional model in Chicago Public Schools. Computing in Science
& Engineering, 18(2), 10–17.
70
Dictionary.com. (2019). Computer science. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/computer-
science
DiMartino, C., & Jessen, S. B. (2016). School brand management: The policies, practices, and
perceptions of branding and marketing in New York City’s public high schools. Urban
Education, 51(5), 447–475.
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. http://www.education.com/reference/
article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/
Ed Data. (2019). Demographics and college and career readiness. https://www.ed-data.org/
district/Los-Angeles/Covina--Valley-Unified
Ertmer, P. A., Bai, H., Dong, C., Khalil, M., Hee Park, S., & Wang, L. (2002). Online
professional development: Building administrators’ capacity for technology leadership.
Journal of Computing in Teacher Education, 19(1), 5–11.
Fink, A. (2013). How to conduct surveys: A step-by-step guide (5th ed.). SAGE.
Fisher, A., Margolis, J., & Miller, F. (1997). Undergraduate women in computer science:
Experience, motivation and culture. Inroads – The SIGCSE Bulletin, 29(1), 106–110.
Florida, R., & Gates, G. (2003). Technology and tolerance: The importance of diversity to high-
technology growth. In T. N. Clark (Ed.), The city as an entertainment machine (pp. 199–
219). Emerald Group.
Forte, A., & Guzdial, M. (2005). Motivation and nonmajors in computer science: Identifying
discrete audiences for introductory courses. IEEE Transactions on Education, 48(2),
248–253.
71
Gal-Ezer, J., & Stephenson, C. (2014). A tale of two countries: Successes and challenges in K-12
computer science education in Israel and the United States. ACM Transactions on
Computing Education, 14(2), 8.
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. (2015). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. 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.
Goode, J. (2008a). Education Reprogramming college preparatory computer science.
Communications of the ACM, 51(11), 31–33.
Goode, J. (2008b). Increasing Diversity in K-12 computer science: Strategies from the field.
Inroads – The SIGCSE Bulletin, 40(1), 362–366.
Goode, J., & Margolis, J. (2011). Exploring computer science: A case study of school reform.
ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 11(2), 12.
Guzdial, M. (2016). Bringing computer science to US schools, state by state. Communications of
the ACM, 59(5), 24–25
Harsha, P. P., & Shah, S. (2011). Creating brand value of higher education institution.
International Journals of Marketing and Technology, 19(2), 152–158.
Hew, K. F., & Brush, T. (2007). Integrating technology into K-12 teaching and learning: Current
knowledge gaps and recommendations for future research. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 55(3), 223–252.
72
Holmboe, C., McIver, L., & George, C. E. (2001, April). Research agenda for computer science
education. In G. Kadoda (Ed.), Proceedings of the Psychology of Programming Interest
Group (Vol. 13, pp. 207–223). Psychology of Programming Interest Group
Howard, K. E., & Havard, D. D. (2019). Advanced Placement (AP) computer science principles:
Searching for equity in a two-tiered solution to underrepresentation. Journal of Computer
Science Integration, 2(1), 1–15.
Hu, H. H., Heiner, C., & McCarthy, J. (2016, February). Deploying exploring computer science
statewide. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science
Education (pp. 72–77). Association for Computing Machinery.
Hubwieser, P., Giannakos, M. N., Berges, M., Brinda, T., Diethelm, I., Magenheim, J., Pal, Y.,
Jackova, J, & Jasute, E. (2015, July). A global snapshot of computer science education in
K-12 schools. In Proceedings of the 2015 ITiCSE on working group reports (pp. 65-83).
Association for Computing Machinery.
Hyslop, A. (2010). CTE's Role in science, technology, engineering and mathematics.
Techniques: Connecting Education and Careers, 85(3), 16–20.
Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. B. (2015). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative,
and mixed approaches (5th ed.). SAGE.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
ATD Press.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41(4), 212–218.
Lawrence-Fowler, W. A., Grabowski, L. M., & Reilly, C. F. (2015, October). Bridging the
divide: Strategies for college to career readiness in computer science. Paper presented at
73
the IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, El Paso, TX. doi: 10.1109/FIE.2015.
7344317
Mahmoud, Q. H. (2005). Revitalizing computing science education. Computer, (5), 100–198.
Margolis, J., Goode, J., & Chapman, G. (2015). An equity lens for scaling: A critical juncture for
exploring computer science. ACM Inroads, 6(3), 58–66.
Margolis, J., Holme, J. J., Estrella, R., Goode, J., Nao, K., & Stumme, S. (2003). The computer
science pipeline in urban high schools: Access to what? For whom? IEEE Technology
and Society Magazine, 22(3), 12–19.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Mishkind, A. (2014). Overview: State definitions of college and career readiness. College and
Career Readiness and Success Center.
Murphy, L., & Thomas, L. (2008, June). Dangers of a fixed mindset: Implications of self-
theories research for computer science education. Inroads – The SIGCSE Bulletin, 40(3),
271–275.
Nager, A., & Atkinson, R. D. (2016). The case for improving US computer science education.
NCSSS Journal, 21(1), 18–19.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2015). IPEDS Completions Survey [Data file].
https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/webcaspar/index.jsp?subHeader=WebCASPARHome
Ni, L., & Guzdial, M. (2012). Who AM I?: understanding high school computer science
teachers’ professional identity. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM technical symposium on
Computer Science Education (pp. 499-504). Association for Computing Machinery.
74
Nikirk, M. (2009). Today's millennial generation: A look ahead to the future they create.
Techniques: Connecting Education and Careers, 84(5), 20–23.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. SAGE
Pearson, L. C., & Moomaw, W. (2005). The relationship between teacher autonomy and stress,
work satisfaction, empowerment, and professionalism. Educational Research Quarterly,
29(1), 38–54.
Pekrun, R. (2011). Emotions as drivers of learning and cognitive development. In R. A. Calvo &
S. K. D’Mello (Eds.), New perspectives on affect and learning technologies (pp. 23–39).
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-9625-1_3
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667–686.
Roberts, E. (2004, March). The dream of a common language: The search for simplicity and
stability in computer science education. Inroads – The SIGCSE Bulletin, 36(1), 115–119.
Roberts, E. S., Kassianidou, M., & Irani, L. (2002). Encouraging women in computer science.
Inroads – The SIGCSE Bulletin, 34(2), 84–88.
Robinson, S. B., & Leonard, K. F. (2019). Designing quality survey questions. SAGE.
Rocco, T. S., & Plakhotnik, M. S. (2009). Literature reviews, conceptual frameworks, and
theoretical frameworks: Terms, functions, and distinctions. Human Resource
Development Review, 8(1), 120–130.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. Teachers College Press.
Ryoo, J., Goode, J., & Margolis, J. (2015). It takes a village: Supporting inquiry-and equity-
oriented computer science pedagogy through a professional learning community.
Computer Science Education, 25(4), 351–370.
75
Salkind, N. J. (2014). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics (5th ed.). SAGE.
Scragg, G., & Smith, J. (1998). A study of barriers to women in undergraduate computer science.
Inroads – The SIGCSE Bulletin, 30(1), 82–86.
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2006). Information processing theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/information-processingtheory/
Taylor, H. G., & Luegina, M. (1991). An analysis of success factors in college computer science:
High school methodology is a key element. Journal of Research on Computing in
Education, 24(2), 240–245.
Tucker, A. (2003). A model curriculum for K--12 computer science: Final report of the ACM K--
12 Task Force Curriculum Committee. Association for Computing Machinery.
Wang, J., Hong, H., Ravitz, J., & Hejazi Moghadam, S. (2016, February). Landscape of K-12
computer science education in the US: Perceptions, access, and barriers. In Proceedings
of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education (pp. 645-650).
Association for Computing Machinery.
Webb, D. C., Repenning, A., & Koh, K. H. (2012, February). Toward an emergent theory of
broadening participation in computer science education. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM
technical symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 173-178). Association for
Computing Machinery.
Wilson, B. C. (2002). A study of factors promoting success in computer science including gender
differences. Computer Science Education, 12(1-2), 141–164.
Wikipedia. (2019). Computer Science Teachers Association.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Science_Teachers_Association
76
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.
Yadav, A., Hong, H., & Stephenson, C. (2016). Computational thinking for all: pedagogical
approaches to embedding 21st century problem solving in K-12
classrooms. TechTrends, 60(6), 565-568.
Yough, M., & Anderman, E. (2006). Goal orientation theory.
http://www.education.com/reference/article/goal-orientation-theory/
Zendler, A., & Spannagel, C. (2008). Empirical foundation of central concepts for computer
science education. Journal of Educational Resources in Computing, 8(2), 6.
77
Appendix A
Interview Protocol
Hello, thank you for taking time to be interviewed today. My name is Andrea Aguilar,
and I will be interviewing you for a study related to expanding computer science opportunities in
public high schools. For this study, a pseudonym will be used for the organization and data will
be kept confidential. I’d like to start by having you please review the information sheet
regarding participation in the study, I’ve brought an extra copy for you to keep for your records
as well. The information sheet outlines that you can decide not to answer any questions or
withdraw from the study at any time.
Next, I wanted to obtain your permission to audio record our interview.
Thank you for reviewing the information sheet and for your permission to audio record.
Our interview will take approximately 30-45 minutes and consists of 14 questions. Do you have
any questions before we start the interview?
Let’s begin.
I’d like to start by asking some questions about your district and/or site.
1. Please describe your current role in the district, how long you have been in your current
role, and any pertinent experience you have. (Demographic)
2. How does your district or site define computer science? (Cultural Setting)
3. Tell me about the culture at your district or site with regards to computer science.
(Cultural Setting)
4. Please share your district or site’s college and career readiness goals around
implementing computer science opportunities at your site. Is this included in your
WASC? (Goal Orientation)
78
5. How important is it for you continue to learn about different ways to implement computer
science courses and programs from other aspirational sites.” (Goal Orientation)
6. How do you plan to increase enrollment for all students (including females and
minorities) for potential computer sciences courses at your site? (Equity and Diversity)
Transition: Next, I want to get a little more specific in the area of teacher training.
7. How do teachers respond to new initiatives at your district or site? Describe a recent
initiative and how teachers responded. (Cultural Models)
8. Describe the support teachers are provided when new initiatives are rolled out. Provide
an example. (Cultural Settings)
9. Please describe any existing computer science teacher training programs available.
Please share your knowledge related to these programs. (Declarative)
10. Please describe the existing implementation plans for offering computer science training
for teachers at your district or school site. If you do not have a current plan, what are the
steps you would follow to implement computer science training for your teachers?
(Procedural)
11. Is it important to you to offer computer science training for teachers? How would or do
administrators demonstrate that it is important to offer computer science training for their
teachers? To what degree would you say these are true for you? (Utility Value)
Transition: I’d like to continue the discussion around your teachers, in the area of new
courses and initiatives.
12. How much training time would or do computer science teachers have and would or do
the teachers feel they have enough time? (Cultural Settings)
79
13. How would the teachers react if new computer science courses were added in the next
school year? (Cultural Model)
14. Do the teachers know other teachers they could turn to ask how they have integrated
computer science into their courses? (Cultural Settings)
That will conclude the interview. Do you have any questions for me?
Thank you again for taking time, and here is my contact information in case you have any
additional questions.
80
Appendix B
Information Sheet for Exempt Applications
USC IRB#:
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education, 3470 Trousdale Parkway, Los Angeles, CA 90089
INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
Computer Science (CS) Education in California Public High Schools: An Evaluation Study
You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Andrea Aguilar under the
supervision of Dr. Tracy Tambascia at the University of Southern California. Research studies
include only people who voluntarily choose to take part. This document explains information
about this study. You should ask questions about anything that is unclear to you.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the degree to which the educational organization is
meeting its goal to increase student opportunities in the field of computer science. The study will
center on knowledge, motivation and organizational influences of district and public high school
site leaders related to achieving the organizational goals. In addition, the study seeks to examine
how school sites can increase the number of teachers qualified to teach computer science.
PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
The interview will include at minimum 14 items and will take approximately 30-45 minutes.
Questions will be aligned to the research questions and the conceptual framework of the study. In
this research study, an informed consent document will be presented before the interview begins.
The informed consent process will clearly communicate that participation is voluntary and allow
participation to cease at any point in the study. The informed consent process will also indicate
that interview data will be recorded as anonymous and permission to record will be obtained via
a signed document. Participants can decline to be recorded and continue with their participation.
CONFIDENTIALITY
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential. All
data will be stored in a password protected folder on a local drive and only the research team will
have access to the data. Responses will be coded with a false name (pseudonym). Interviews will
be audio-recorded and transcribed. The audio-recordings and original transcriptions will be
destroyed after a year. The members of the research team and the University of Southern
California’s Human Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP
reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.
81
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns regarding the study, please contact Andrea Aguilar at
agui752@usc.edu or phone at (562) 698-1747, or Tracy Poon Tambascia at
tpoon@rossier.usc.edu or phone at (213) 740-9747.
IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board, 1640 Marengo Street, Suite 700,
Los Angeles, CA 90033-9269. Phone (323) 442-0114 or email irb@usc.edu.
82
Appendix C
Document Analysis Protocol
The following documents will be included for the purpose of document analysis to
support the organizational goal of increasing computer science opportunities at the high school
level and the stakeholder goal of increasing the number of qualified teachers to teach computer
science:
• Local Control and Accountability Plan Document
• LCAP Points of Interest
• LCAP Priorities
The following matrix aligned to the knowledge, motivation and organizational influences
will be used for document analysis and will track the occurrence and context of associated key
words.
Terms LCAP
Document
LCAP Points
of Interest
LCAP
Priorities
Computer science
Training (computer
science or coding)
Professional
Development
(computer science or
coding)
College & Career
Advanced Placement
A-G
Technology
Culture
New courses
Mentors
Dashboard
Coding
Equity
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Evaluation study: building teacher efficacy in K8 computer science integration
PDF
Developing a computer science education program: an innovation study
PDF
Cultivating culturally competent educators
PDF
The mentorship of instructors and its impact on computer science interest among middle school girls: an evaluation study
PDF
Calibrating the college preparation bridgeway for independent study program students at Amazing Independent High School District: a multisite evaluation study through the teachers' lens
PDF
The knowledge, motivation, and organization influences affecting the frequency of empathetic teaching practice used in the classroom: an evaluation study
PDF
The importance of technological training among public school teachers integrating one-to-one computing: an evaluation study
PDF
Quality literacy instruction in juvenile court schools: an evaluation study
PDF
Effects of mentoring on public school administrators: an evaluation study
PDF
Multi-platform delivery in today’s modern news organizations: challenges and successes of converging student newsrooms, an assessment study
PDF
Supporting teachers' mental health: an evaluation study
PDF
Embedded academic support for high school student success: an innovation study
PDF
Critical factors impacting the exodus from teaching ranks: an evaluative study of an independent Christian school
PDF
Teacher perception on positive behavior interventions and supports’ (PBIS) cultivation for positive teacher-student relationships in high schools: an evaluation study
PDF
Trending upward: an evaluation study of teacher practices in serving special needs students in a public high school
PDF
The academic implications of providing social emotional learning in K-12: an evaluation study
PDF
Answering the call for shared leadership - the missing conditions for successful implementation of English language teacher leadership: an evaluation study
PDF
College and career readiness through high school STEM programs: an evaluation study
PDF
Perception of alternative education teachers readiness to instruct English language learners: an evaluation study
PDF
High attrition rate of preschool teachers in Hong Kong: an evaluation study
Asset Metadata
Creator
Aguilar, Andrea
(author)
Core Title
Computer science education in California public high schools: an evaluation study
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)
Publication Date
09/21/2020
Defense Date
08/19/2020
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
advanced placement,college and career readiness,Computer Science,computer science education,computer science teachers,high school computer science,OAI-PMH Harvest
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Tambascia, Tracy (
committee chair
)
Creator Email
agui752@usc.edu,andrea@me.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-370279
Unique identifier
UC11666136
Identifier
etd-AguilarAnd-8994.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-370279 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-AguilarAnd-8994.pdf
Dmrecord
370279
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Aguilar, Andrea
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
advanced placement
college and career readiness
computer science education
computer science teachers
high school computer science