Abstract
Coding and computational thinking are becoming increasingly important in primary classrooms. In Australia, they are being progressively mandated as part of the school curriculum in each state and territory. As such, it has become imperative that preservice teachers enrolled in primary education courses have the technological and pedagogical skills to design and deliver relevant classroom activities that align with national curricula. Through a small-scale qualitative study, we investigated preservice teachers’ understanding of coding and computational thinking and their perceptions of the connections between these concepts and the Australian Curriculum. We applied summative content and thematic analyses to data collected from semi-structured interviews and supplementary documents. Eight Australian preservice teachers enrolled in an undergraduate primary education degree volunteered to participate in this research. Our findings showed that the participating preservice teachers had a sound if somewhat idiosyncratic knowledge of coding and computational thinking. Their perceptions of how these concepts related to the Australian Curriculum demonstrated a trajectory of understanding that was highly likely to develop and mature as they were transferred to classroom settings. This paper concludes by acknowledging the newness of teaching coding and computational thinking and suggests that time and support are needed for preservice teachers’ current perceptions and understandings to be consolidated in future teaching practice.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
ACARA (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority). (2012). The shape of the Australian Curriculum: Technologies. Retrieved from http://www.acara.edu.au/verve/_resources/Shape_of_the_Australian_Curriculum_-_Technologies_-_August_2012.pdf
ACARA (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2016). Technologies, Foundation – Year 10. Retrieved from https://www.acara.edu.au/curriculum/foundation-year-10/learning-areas-subjects/technologies
ACARA (Australian curriculum, assessment and reporting authority). (n.d.-a). Digital Technologies. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/technologies/digital-technologies/
ACARA (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority). (n.d.-b). Foundation to Year 2 Band Description. Retrieved from https://tinyurl.com/ya7txj8m
ACARA (Australian curriculum, assessment and reporting authority). (n.d.-c). Glossary. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/technologies/glossary/?letter=C
ACARA (Australian curriculum, assessment and reporting authority). (n.d.-d). Rationale. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/technologies/digital-technologies/rationale/
ACARA (Australian curriculum, assessment and reporting authority). (n.d.-e). Structure. Retrieved from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/technologies/digital-technologies/structure/
Adams, W. C. (2015). Conducting semi-structured interviews. In J. Wholey, H. Hatry, & K. Newcomer (Eds.), Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation (pp. 492–505). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119171386.ch19.
Balanskat, A., & Engelhardt, K. (2014). Computing our future. Computer programming and coding - Priorities, school curricula and initiatives across Europe. Retrieved from http://fcl.eun.org/documents/10180/14689/Computing+our+future_final.pdf/746e36b1-e1a6-4bf1-8105-ea27c0d2bbe0
Barr, V., & Stephenson, C. (2011). Bringing computational thinking to K-12: What is involved and what is the role of the computer science education community? ACM Inroads, 2(1), 48–54.
Bers, M. U. (2018). Coding as a playground: Programming and computational thinking in the early childhood classroom. London: Routledge.
Bowen, G. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027.
Bower, M., & Falkner, K. (2015). Computational thinking, the notional machine, pre-service teachers, and research opportunities. Proceedings of the Australasian computing education conference (pp. 37–46). Sydney, Australia.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.
Cabrera, L. (2019). Teacher preconceptions of computational thinking: A systematic literature review. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 27(3), 305–333.
Dredge, S. (2014). Coding at school: A parent’s guide to England’s new computing curriculum. In The Guardian Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/sep/04/coding-school-computing-children-programming.
ESA (Education Services Australia). (n.d.). An introduction to algorithms. Retrieved from https://www.digitaltechnologieshub.edu.au/teachers/scope-and-sequence/f-2/sequences/an-intro-to-algorithms
Etikan, I., Musa, S., & Alkassim, R. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11.
Fluck, A., & Bower, M. (2016). Computational thinking: Philosophy and practice. In M. Henderson & G. Romeo (Eds.), Teaching and digital technologies: Big issues and critical questions (pp. 73–88). Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43.
Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.
Hunsaker, E. (2018). Integrating computational thinking. Retrieved from https://k12techintegration.pressbooks.com/chapter/integrating-computational-thinking
Maguire, M., & Delahunt, B. (2017). Doing a thematic analysis: A practical, step-by-step guide for learning and teaching scholars. AISHE-J, 8(3), 3351–33514 Retrieved from http://ojs.aishe.org/index.php/aishe-j/article/view/335.
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.
Mouza, C., Karchmer-Klein, R., Nandakumar, R., & Ozden, S. (2014). Investigating the impact of an integrated approach to the development of preservice teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Computers & Education, 71, 206–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.020.
Mouza, C., Yang, H., Pan, Y. C., Ozden, S. Y., & Pollock, L. (2017). Resetting educational technology coursework for pre-service teachers: A computational thinking approach to the development of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(3). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3521.
Ohanesian, S. (2018). What is the difference between coding & programming? [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://info.jkcp.com/blog/coding-vs-programming
Ray, B., Rogers, R., & Hocutt, M. (2020). Perceptions of non-STEM discipline teachers on coding as a teaching and learning tool: What are the possibilities? Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 36(1), 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2019.1646170.
Ricci, C. (2015). Coding education in schools: Crucial as English and Maths - or is it? In The age Retrieved from https://www.theage.com.au/education/coding-education-in-schools-crucial-as-english-and-maths%2D%2Dor-is-it-20150529-ghct42.html.
Ryan, G., & Bernard, H.R. (2003). Techniques to identify themes in qualitative data. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a31e/c3652f3f1b6df31423883a1fc7fbf8509ce4.pdf
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research: Perspective in practice. London: Sage.
Sterling, L. (2016). Coding in the curriculum: Fad or foundational? Retrieved from https://research.acer.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1297&context=research_conference
Webb, M., Davis, N., Bell, T., Katz, Y. J., Reynolds, N., Chambers, D. P., & Sysło, M. M. (2016). Computer science in K–12 school curricula of the 21st century: Why, what and when? Education and Information Technologies, 22(2), 445–468. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016-9493-x.
Werner, L., Denner, J., & Campe, S. (2014). Children programming games: A strategy for measuring computational learning. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 14(4), 24. https://doi.org/10.1145/2677091.
Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35 Retrieved from https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~15110-s13/Wing06-ct.pdf.
Wing, J.M. (2010). Computational thinking: What and why? Retrieved from http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~CompThink/resources/TheLinkWing.pdf
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2016.1257418.
Yadav, A., Mayfield, C., Zhou, N., Hambrusch, S., & Korb, J. T. (2014). Computational thinking in elementary and secondary teacher education. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 14(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1145/2576872.
Yadav, A., Stephenson, C., & Hong, H. (2017). Computational thinking for teacher education. Communications of the ACM, 80(4), 55–62. https://doi.org/10.1145/2994591.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lloyd, M., Chandra, V. Teaching coding and computational thinking in primary classrooms: perceptions of Australian preservice teachers. Curric Perspect 40, 189–201 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41297-020-00117-1
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41297-020-00117-1