Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A proposed computational thinking teacher development framework for K-12 guided by the TPACK model

  • Published:
Journal of Computers in Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Developing students’ computational thinking (CT) to encourage their creative problem-solving skills has increasingly become a focus of K-12 education. However, there is a shortage of capable teachers to implement CT. In this study, we propose a Computational Thinking Teacher Development framework for the design of a teacher development programme. The framework focuses on four content-related dimensions of the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) model. TCK refers to the use of a block-based programming environment, including its powerful features such as accelerometers, to programme. CK refers to the knowledge of CT concepts, practices, and perspectives. PCK refers to CT pedagogies that do not involve the use of the programming environments, such as unplugged activities and project-based learning. TPACK refers to the integration of technology, pedagogy, and the CK of CT in context for CT development. We further propose a seven-step structure based on these dimensions for learning to teach a unit of curriculum content. The last three steps involve revisiting the TCK for thinking about the possible use of the powerful features for cultivating creativity, revisiting the CK for the consolidation of knowledge, and revisiting the PCK for the improvement of pedagogies for CT. We implemented the programme to 291 in-service teachers, and the evaluation results suggested that the programme was useful in supporting the teachers to teach CT. When asked about the most useful aspect of the programme, the most frequently mentioned answer was the ‘seven steps’. This study contributes to the design of similar programmes for the development of CT teachers.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Not applicable.

Code availability

Not applicable.

References

  • Angeli, C., Voogt, J., Fluck, A., Webb, M., Cox, M., Malyn-Smith, J., et al. (2016). A K-6 computational thinking curriculum framework: Implications for teacher knowledge. Educational Technology & Society, 19(3), 47–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barron, B., & Daring-Hammond, L. (2008). How can we teach for meaningful learning? In L. Daring-Hammond, B. Barron, P. D. Pearson, A. H. Schoenfeld, E. K. Stage, T. D. Zimmerman, G. N. Cervetti, & J. L. Tilson (Eds.), Powerful learning: What we know about teaching for understanding (pp. 11–70). Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, R. L., Maeng, J. L., & Binns, I. C. (2013). Learning in context. Technology integration in a teacher preparation program informed by situated learning theory. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50(3), 348–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, T., Alexander, J., Freeman, I., & Grimley, M. (2009). Computer science unplugged: School students doing real computing without computers. New Zealand Journal of Applied Computing and Information Technology, 13(1), 20–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brackmann, C. P., Román-González, M., Robles, G., Moreno-León, J., Casali, A., & Barone, D. (2017, November). Development of computational thinking skills through unplugged activities in primary school. In Proceedings of the 12th workshop on primary and secondary computing education (pp. 65–72).

  • Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. In 2012 Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA’12), Canada.

  • Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J. S. (1960). The process of education. Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caeli, E. N., & Yadav, A. (2020). Unplugged approaches to computational thinking: A historical perspective. TechTrends, 64(1), 29–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, C. K. (2015). Use of animation in engaging teachers and students in assessment in Hong Kong higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 52(5), 474–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active-Constructive-Interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 73–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, A. (2006). The nature of substance of cooperating teacher reflection. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22, 910–921.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

  • del Olmo-Muñoz, J., Cózar-Gutiérrez, R., & González-Calero, J. A. (2020). Computational thinking through unplugged activities in early years of Primary Education. Computers & Education, 150, 103832.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denner, J., Werner, L., Campe, S., & Ortiz, E. (2014). Pair programming: Under what conditions is it advantageous for middle school students? Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46(3), 277–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ertmer, P. A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2010). Teacher technology change: How knowledge, confidence, beliefs, and culture intersect. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42, 255–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fried, M. N., & Amit, M. (2005). A spiral task as a model for in-service teacher education. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 8(5), 419–436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 915–945.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, B. C. (2014). Reconfiguring bruner. Compressing the spiral curriculum. Phi Delta Kappan, 95(7), 41–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grover, S., Basu, S., & Schank, P. (2018). What we can learn about student learning from open-ended programming projects in middle school computer science. In Proceedings of the 49th ACM technical symposium on computer science education (pp. 999–1004).

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harden, R., & Stamper, N. (1999). What is the spiral curriculum? Medical Teacher, 21(2), 141–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hermans, F., & Aivaloglou, E. (2017, November). To scratch or not to scratch? A controlled experiment comparing plugged first and unplugged first programming lessons. In Proceedings of the 12th workshop on primary and secondary computing education (pp. 49–56).

  • Hsu, T. C., Chang, S. C., & Hung, Y. T. (2018). How to learn and how to teach computational thinking: Suggestions based on a review of the literature. Computers & Education, 126, 296–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kafai, Y., & Resnick, M. (Eds.). (1996). Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking, and learning in a digital world. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kong, S. C. (2015). An experience of a three-year study on the development of critical thinking skills in flipped secondary classrooms with pedagogical and technological support. Computers and Education, 89, 16–31.

  • Kong, S. C. (2016). A framework of curriculum design for computational thinking development in K-12 education. Journal of Computers in Education, 3(4), 377–394.

  • Kong, S. C. (2019). Components and methods of evaluating computational thinking for fostering creative problem-solvers in senior primary school education. In S. C. Kong & H. Abelson (Eds.), Computational thinking education (pp. 119–141). Singapore: SpringerOpen.

  • Kong, S. C., & Wang, Y.-Q. (2019). Nurture interest-driven creators in programmable robotics education: An empirical investigation in primary school settings. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 14, 20.

  • Kong, S. C., & Wang, Y.-Q. (2020). Formation of computational identity through computational thinking perspectives development in programming learning: A mediation analysis among primary school students. Computers in Human Behavior, 106, 106230.

  • Kong, S. C., Chiu, M. M., & Lai, M. (2018). A study of primary school students’ interest, collaboration attitude, and programming empowerment in computational thinking education. Computers and Education, 127, 178–189.

  • Kong, S. C., Abelson, H., & Lai, M. (2019). Introduction to computational thinking education. In S.C. Kong & H. Abelson (Eds.), Computational thinking education (pp. 1–10). Singapore: SpringerOpen.

  • Kong, S. C., Lai, M., & Sun, D. (2020). Teacher development in computational thinking: Design and learning outcomes of programming concepts, practices and pedagogy. Computers and Education, 151, 103872.

  • Lathika, K. (2016). Student centered learning. International Journal of Current Research and Modern Education, 1(1), 677–680.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Luft, J. A., Roehrig, G. H., & Patterson, N. C. (2003). Contrasting landscapes: A comparison of the impact of different induction programs on beginning science teachers’ practices, beliefs, and experiences. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 77–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lye, S. Y., & Koh, J. H. L. (2014). Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through programming: What is next for K-12? Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 51–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, S. L., & Rich, P. J. (2019). Preparing elementary school teachers to teach computing, coding, and computational thinking. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 19(4), 790–824.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDowell, C., Werner, L., Bullock, H., & Fernald, J. (2006). Pair programming improves student retention, confidence, and program quality. Communications of the ACM, 49(8), 90–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mouza, C., Yadav, A., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. (2018). Developing computationally literate teachers: Current perspectives and future directions for teacher preparation in computing education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 26(3), 333–352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nichols, S. (2016). Open-ended projects: 21st century learning in engineering education. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 76(3), 20–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orgill, M. (2007). Situated cognition. In G. M. Bodner & M. Orgill (Eds.), Theoretical frameworks for research in chemistry/science education (pp. 179–194). Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms. Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton, E. W., Tissenbaum, M., & Harunani, F. (2019). MIT App Inventor: Objectives, design, and development. In S. C. Kong & H. Abelson (Eds.), Computational thinking education (pp. 31–49). SpringerOpen.

  • Pea, R. D., Soloway, E., & Spohrer, J. C. (1987). The buggy path to the development of programming expertise. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 9, 5–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1953). The origin of intelligence in the child. Routledge & Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plattner, H. (2010). An introduction to design thinking: Process guide. Stanford Institute of Design.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernandez, A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., et al. (2009). Scratch: Programming for all. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 60–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saeli, M., Perrenet, J., Jochems, W. M. G., & Zwaneveld, B. (2011). Teaching programming in secondary school: A pedagogical content knowledge perspective. Informatics in Education, 10(1), 73–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadik, O., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A., & Brush, T. (2020). Secondary computer science teachers’ pedagogical needs. International Journal of Computer Science Education in Schools, 4(1), 33–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sands, P., Yadav, A., & Good, J. (2018). Computational thinking in K-12: In-service teacher perceptions of computational thinking. In M. Khine (Ed.), Computational thinking in the STEM disciplines (pp. 151–164). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sentance, S., & Csizmadia, A. (2017). Computing in the curriculum: Challenges and strategies from a teacher’s perspective. Education and Information Technologies, 22(2), 469–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shute, V. J., Sun, C., & Asbell-Clarke, J. (2017). Demystifying computational thinking. Educational Research Review, 22, 142–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tang, K. Y., Chou, T. L., & Tsai, C. C. (2020). A content analysis of computational thinking research: An international publication trends and research. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 29(1), 9–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tissenbaum, M., Sheldon, J., & Abelson, H. (2019). From computational thinking to computational action. Communications of the ACM, 62(3), 34–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tonbuloğlu, B., & Tonbuloğlu, I. (2019). The effect of unplugged coding activities on computational thinking skills of middle school students. Informatics in Education, 18(2), 403–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weintrop, D. (2019). Block-based programming in computer science education. Communications of the ACM, 62(8), 22–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wijaya, H., & Abbas, R. A. (2018). Animation effectiveness for E-learning with progressive web APP approach: A narrative review. International Journal of Engineering and Technology, 7(4), 112–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, L., & Nouri, J. (2019). A systematic review of learning computational thinking through Scratch in K-9. Computers & Education, 141, 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mathematics and Information Technology, The Education University of Hong Kong, 10 Lo Ping Road, Tai Po, New Territories, Hong Kong

    Siu-Cheung Kong

  2. Centre for Learning, Teaching and Technology, The Education University of Hong Kong, 10 Lo Ping Road, Tai Po, New Territories, Hong Kong

    Ming Lai

Authors
  1. Siu-Cheung Kong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ming Lai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Both authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Siu-Cheung Kong.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest/competing interests.

Consent to participate

“Consent to participate” was already obtained from the participants during the research period of the study reported.

Consent for publication

“Consent for publication” was already obtained from the participants during the research period of the study reported.

Ethical approval

“Ethics approval” was already obtained from the institution of both authors for the research work of the study reported.

Research involving human and animal rights

Additional declarations for articles in life science journals that report the results of studies involving humans and/or animals.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kong, SC., Lai, M. A proposed computational thinking teacher development framework for K-12 guided by the TPACK model. J. Comput. Educ. 9, 379–402 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-021-00207-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-021-00207-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation