Advertisement

Technology, Knowledge and Learning

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 273–299 | Cite as

Computer Programming Effects in Elementary: Perceptions and Career Aspirations in STEM

  • Yune Tran
Original research

Abstract

The development of elementary-aged students’ STEM and computer science (CS) literacy is critical in this evolving technological landscape, thus, promoting success for college, career, and STEM/CS professional paths. Research has suggested that elementary-aged students need developmentally appropriate STEM integrated opportunities in the classroom; however, little is known about the potential impact of CS programming and how these opportunities engender positive perceptions, foster confidence, and promote perseverance to nurture students’ early career aspirations related to STEM/CS. The main purpose of this mixed-method study was to examine elementary-aged students’ (N = 132) perceptions of STEM, career choices, and effects from pre- to post-test intervention of CS lessons (N = 183) over a three-month period. Findings included positive and significant changes from students’ pre- to post-tests as well as augmented themes from 52 student interviews to represent increased enjoyment of CS lessons, early exposure, and its benefits for learning to future careers.

Keywords

Elementary STEM education Motivation Computational thinking Careers 

References

  1. Aldoplhe, F. S. G., Fraser, B. J., & Aldigre, J. M. (2003). A cross national study of learning environment and attitudes among junior secondary science students in Australia and Indonesia. Paper presented at the Third International Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education Conference, East London, South Africa.Google Scholar
  2. Anderman, E. R., & Young, A. J. (1994). Motivation and strategy use in science: Individual differences and classroom effects. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 811–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersen, M. (2005). Thinking about women: A quarter century’s view. Gender and Society, 19(4), 437–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Archer, L., Osborne, J., DeWitt, J., Dillon, J., Wong, B., & Willis, B. (2013). ASPIRES Young peoples’ science and career aspirations, age 10–14. London: Department of Ducation and Professional Studies. King’s College.Google Scholar
  5. Auger, R. W., & Blackhurst, A. E. (2005). The development of elementary-aged children’s aspirations and expectations. American School Counselor Association Journal, 8(4), 322–329.Google Scholar
  6. Augustine, N. R. (2005). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  7. Ausubel, D. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. New York: Grune & Stratton.Google Scholar
  8. Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28, 117–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bandura, A., Barbarenelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (2001). Self-efficacy beliefs as shapers of children’s aspirations and career trajectories. Child Development, 72(9), 187–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Barr, V., & Stephenson, C. (2011). Bringing computational thinking to K-12: What is involved and what is the role of the computer science community? ACM Inroads, 2(1), 48–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Barshay, J. (2011). ‘Blended learning’ for the little ones. Education Week, 31(9), 1–14.Google Scholar
  12. Bell, T., Witten, I., & Fellows, M. (2011). Computer science unplugged. Retrieved from http://csunplugged.org/books/. Accessed 15 Aug 2015.
  13. Bers, M. U. (2010). The TangibleK robotics program: Applied computational thinking for young children. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 12(2). Retrieved from http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v12n2/bers.html.
  14. Bers, M., & Horn, M. (2010). Tangible programming in early childhood: Revisiting developmental assumptions through new technologies. In I. Berson & M. Berson (Eds.), High-tech tots: Childhood in a digital world (pp. 49–70). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  15. Boyles, S. R. (2011). Using technology in the classroom. Science Scope, 34(9), 39–43.Google Scholar
  16. Campbell, G., Denes, R., & Morrison, C. (Eds.). (2000). Access denied. Race, ethnicity, and the scientific enterprise. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Cavallo, A. M. L. (1996). Meaningful learning reasoning ability and student’s understanding and problem of genetics topics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 625–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cavallo, A. M. L., Rozman, M., & Potter, W. H. (2004). Gender differences in learning Constructs, shifts in learning constructs, and their relationship to course achievement in a structured inquiry, yearlong collage physic course for life science majors. School Science and Mathematics, 104(6), 288–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Center of Digital Education. (2013). Center for digital education digital content and curriculum comprehensive report. Retrieved September 1, 2016 from http://www.centerdigitaled.com/awards/digital-content-curriculum/2013awards.html.
  20. Chen, X. (2009). Students who study science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) in postsecondary education (NCES 2009-161). Washington DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.Google Scholar
  21. Cinamon, R. G., & Dan, O. (2010). Parental attitudes toward preschoolers’ career education: A mixed-method study. Journal of Career Development, 37, 519–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Clements, D. H. (1987). Longitudinal study of the effects of logo programming on cognitive abilities and achievement. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 3, 73–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Clements, D. H., Battista, M. T., & Sarama, J. (2001). Logo and geometry. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education Monograph Series, 10.Google Scholar
  24. Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. (2007). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a Brighter economic future. Washington DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  25. Correll, S. J. (2001). Gender and the career choice process: The role of biased self-Assessments. The American Journal of Sociology, 106(6), 1691–1730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. CSTA. (2011). Operational definition of computational thinking for K-12 education. Retrieved from http://www.csta.acm.org/Curriculum/sub/CompThinking.html. Accessed 1 July 2017.
  28. DeJarnette, N. K. (2012). America’s children: Providing early exposure to STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) initiatives. Education, 133(1), 77–84.Google Scholar
  29. DeWitt, J., Archer, L., & Osborne, J. (2014). Science-related aspirations across the primary-secondary divide: Evidence from two surveys in England. International Journal of Science Education, 36(10), 1609–1629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. DiSessa, A. A. (2000). Changing minds: Computers, learning, and literacy. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  31. Duschl, R. A., Schweinggruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in Grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  32. Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivation. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (5th ed., Vol. 3, pp. 1017–1095). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  33. Edmondson, K. M. (1989). The influence of students’ conceptions of scientific knowledge and their orientations to learning on their choices of learning strategy in a college introductory level biology course. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
  34. Elkind, D. (1982). Piagetian psychology and the practice of child psychiatry. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 21, 435–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Fessakis, G., Gouli, E., & Mavroudi, E. (2013). Problem solving by 5-6 years old kindergarten children in a computer programming environment: A case study. Computers & Education, 63, 87–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ginzberg, E. (1952). Toward a theory of occupational choice. Occupations, 30, 491–494.Google Scholar
  37. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine.Google Scholar
  38. Gottfredson, L. (1981). Circumscription and compromise: A developmental theory of occupational aspirations [Monograph]. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 545–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Gottfredson, L. S., & Lapan, R. T. (1997). Assessing gender-based circumscription of occupational aspirations. Journal of Career Assessment, 5(4), 419–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Gottfried, A. E. (1990). Academic intrinsic motivation in young elementary school children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 525–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K-12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42, 38–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Harackiewiez, J. M., Rozek, C. S., Hulleman, C. S., & Hyde, J. (2012). Helping parents to motivate adolescents in mathematics and science: An experimental test of utility-value intervention. Psychological Science, 23, 899–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Harris, C. J., & Rooks, D. L. (2010). Managing inquiry-based science: Challenges in enacting complex instruction in elementary and middle school classrooms. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21, 227–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Henderson, P. B., Cortina, T. J., Hazzan, O., & Wing, J. M. (2007). Computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 38th ACM SIGCSE technical symposium on computer science education (SIGCSE’07) (pp. 195–196). New York, NY: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  45. Holland, J. L. (1985). Making vocational choices (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  46. Hong, S. (2010). The reciprocal relationship between parental involvement and Mathematics achievement: Autoregressive cross-lagged modeling. Journal of Experimental Education, 78, 419–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Horn, M. S., Crouser, R. J., & Bers, M. U. (2011). Tangible interaction and learning: The case for hybrid approach. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 16(4), 379–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Horn, M. B., & Staker, H. (2011). The rise of K-12 blended learning. Innosight Institute. Retrieved September 1, 2016 from http://www.innosightinstitute.org/mediaroom/publications/education-publications.
  49. Ing, M. (2014). Can parents influence children’s mathematics achievement and persistence in STEM careers? Journal of Career Development, 41(2), 87–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. International Society for Technology in Education and the Computer Science Teachers Association. (2011). Operational definition of computational thinking for K-12 Thinking operational-defintiion-flyer.pdf. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/docs/ct-documents/computational-thinking-operational-definition-flyer.pdf?sfvrsn=2. Accessed 1 July 2017.
  51. International Society for Technology in Education and the Computer Science Teachers Association. (2017). Computational thinking teacher resources. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/docs/ct-documents/ct-teacher-resources_2ed-pdf.pdf?sfvrsn=2.
  52. Israel, M., Pearson, J. N., Tapia, T., Wherfel, Q. M., & Reese, G. (2015). Supporting all learners in school wide computational thinking: A cross case qualitative analysis. Computers & Education, 82, 263–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Jona, K., Wilensky, U., Trouille, L., Horn, M. S., Orton, K., Weintrop, D., & Beheshti, E. (2014). Embedding computational thinking in science, technology, engineering, and math (CT-STEM). Presented at the Future Directions in Computer Science Education Summit Meeting, Orlando, FL. Google Scholar
  54. Kafai, Y. B., & Burke, Q. (2014). Connected code: Why children need to learn programming. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  55. Kazakoff, E., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2013). The effect of a classroom-based intensive robotics and Programming workshop on sequencing ability in early childhood. Early Childhood Education Journal, 41(4), 245–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kuo, Y., Belland, B. R., Schroder, K. E., & Walker, A. E. (2014). K-12 teachers’ perceptions of and their satisfaction with interaction type in blended learning environments. Distance Education, 35(3), 360–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Lawrenz, F. (1976). Student perception of the classroom learning environment in biology, chemistry and physics courses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 13(4), 315–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2013). Is it STEM or” S & M” that we truly love? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(8), 1237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Lee, I., Martin, F., Denner, J., Coulter, B., Allan, W., Erickson, J., et al. (2011). Computational thinking for youth in practice. ACM Inroads, 2, 32–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Liao, Y.-K., & Bright, G. (1991). Effects of computer-assisted instruction and computer programming on cognitive outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 7(3), 251–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Lou, S., Chen, N., Tsai, H., Tseng, K., & Shih, R. (2012). Using blended creative teaching: Improving a teacher education course on designing materials for young children. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(5), 776–792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ma, X. (1999). Dropping out of advanced mathematics: The effects of parental involvement. Teachers College Record, 101, 60–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Ma, X. (2001). Participation in advanced mathematics: Do expectation and influence of students, peers, teachers and matter? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 132–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Magnuson, S. J., & Palincsar, A. S. (2005). Teaching to promote the development of scientific knowledge and reasoning about light at the elementary level. In M. S. Donovan & J. D. Bransford (Eds.), How students learn science in the classroom (pp. 53–106). Washington DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  65. Magnuson, C., & Starr, M. (2000). How early is too early to begin life career planning? The importance of the elementary school years. Journal of Career Development, 27(2), 89–101.Google Scholar
  66. Middleton, E. B., & Loughead, T. A. (1993). Parental influence on career development: An integrative framework for adolescent career counseling. Journal of Career Development, 19, 161–173.Google Scholar
  67. Mioduser, D., Levy, S., & Talis, V. (2009). Episodes to scripts to rules: Concrete abstractions in kindergarten children’s explanations of a robot’s behaviors. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19(1), 15–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Moomaw, S. (2012). STEM begins in the early years. School Science and Mathematics, 112(2), 57–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Murphy, C., & Beggs, J. (2003). Children’s perceptions of school science. School Science Review, 84, 109–116.Google Scholar
  70. Nagy, G., Trautwein, U., Baumert, J., Koller, O., & Garrett, J. (2006). Gender and course-selection in upper secondary education: Effects of academic self-concept and intrinsic value. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12(4), 323–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. National Academy of Sciences. (2007). Beyond bias and barriers: Fulfilling the potential of women in academic science and engineering. Washington DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  72. National Academy of Sciences. (2010). Rising above the gathering storm, revisited: Rapidly approaching category (Vol. 5). Washington DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  73. National Research Council (NRC). (2009). Engineering in K–12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  74. National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  75. Newhouse, N. (1990). Implication of attitudes and behavior research for environmental Conservation. The Journal of Environmental Education, 22(1), 26–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Oh, P. S., & Yager, R. E. (2004). Development of constructivist science classrooms and changes in student attitudes toward science learning. Science Education International, 15(2), 105–113.Google Scholar
  77. Oregon Department of Education. (2015). School and District Report Cards. Retrieved from https://www.ode.state.or.us/data/reportcard/reports.aspx. Accessed 1 July 2017.
  78. Papanastasiou, C., & Papanastasiou, E. C. (2004). Major influences on attitudes toward science. Educational Research and Evaluation, 10(3), 239–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Papanastasiou, E. C., & Zemblyas, M. (2002). The effects of attitudes on science achievement: A study conducted among high school students in Cyprus. International Review of Education, 48(6), 469–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  81. Pintrinch, P., & Schunk, D. (2002). Motivation in education. Upper Saddle River: Merrill Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  82. Program for International Student Assessment. (2012). Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/pisa2012/index.asp.
  83. Puacharearn, P., & Fisher, D. (2004). The effectiveness of cooperative learning integrated with constructivist teaching on improving learning environments in Thai secondary school science classrooms. Bentley: Curtin University of Technology.Google Scholar
  84. Reigle-Crumb, C., Moore, C., & Ramos-Wada, A. (2010). Who wants to have a career in science or math? Exploring adolescents’ future aspirations by gender and race/ethnicity. Science Education, 95, 458–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Resnick, M. (2006). Computer as paintbrush: Technology, play, and creative society. In D. Singer, R. Golikoff, & K. Hirsh-Pasek (Eds.), Play = learning: How play motivates and enhances children’s cognitive and social-emotional growth. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  86. Reynard, R. (2003). Internet-based ESL for distance adult students—A framework for dynamic language learning. Canadian Modern Language Review, 60(2), 123–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Riah, H. & Fraser, B. J. (1997). Chemistry learning environment in Brunei Darussalam’s secondary schools. In D.L. Fisher & T. Richards (Eds.), Science, Mathematics and Technology Education and National Development: Proceedings of the Vietnam Conference (pp. 108–120). Hanoi.Google Scholar
  88. Roe, A. (1957). Early determinants of vocational choice. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 4, 212–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Rosenshine, B. & Stevens, R. (1992). The use of scaffolds for teaching less structured academic tasks. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  90. Sanders, M. (2009, December/January). STEM, STEM education, STEMmania. The Technology Teacher, 20–26.Google Scholar
  91. Seligman, L., & Weinstock, L. (1991). The career development of 10 year olds. Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 25(3), 172–182.Google Scholar
  92. Simpson, R. & Oliver, J. (1990). A summary of major influences on attitude toward and achievement in science among adolescent students. Science Education, 74(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Splete, H., & Freeman-George, A. (1985). Family influences on the career development of young adults. Journal of Career Development, 12, 55–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Strauss, C. (1992). What makes Tony run? Schemas as motive reconsideration. In R. D’Andrade & C. Strauss (Eds.), Human motives and cultural models (pp. 191–224). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  95. Strauss, C., & Quinn, N. (1997). A cognitive theory of cultural meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  96. Tai, R., Liu, C. Q., Maltese, A. V., & Fan, X. (2006). Planning early for careers in science. Science, 312, 1143–1144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Tran, Y. (2014). Addressing reciprocity between families and schools: Why these bridges are instrumental for students’ academic success. Improving Schools Journal, 17(1), 18–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study. (2011). TIMSS international results in mathematics. Retrieved March 6, 2015 from http://timss.bc.edu/timss2011/downloads/T11_IR_M_Chapter1.pdf.
  99. Trice, A. D., Hughes, M. A., Odom, C., Woods, K., & McClellan, N. C. (1995). The origins of children's career aspirations: IV. Testing hypotheses from four theories. Career Development Quarterly, 43, 307–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Trice, A. D., & McClellan, N. (1993). Do children’s career aspirations predict adult occupations? An answer form a secondary analysis of longitudinal study. Psychological Reports, 72, 368–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Trice, A. D., & Tillapaugh, P. (1991). Children’s estimates of their parents’ job satisfaction. Psychological Reports, 69, 63–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Trusty, J. (1996). Relationship of parental involvement in teens’ career development to teens’ attitudes, perceptions, and behavior. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 30, 65–69.Google Scholar
  103. Tziner, A., Loberman, G., Dekel, Z., & Sharoni, G. (2012). The influence of parent off spring relationship on young people’s career preferences. Psicologia del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones, 28(2), 99–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Wahyudi, W., & David, F. T. (2004). The status of science classroom learning environments in Indonesian lower secondary schools. Learning Environment Research, 7, 43–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Orton, K., Jona, K., Trouille, L., et al. (2016). Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(1), 127–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Westermann, E. B. (2014). A half-flipped classroom or an alternative approach?: Primary sources and blended learning. Educational Research Quarterly, 38(2), 43–57.Google Scholar
  107. Wilensky, U., Brady, C., & Horn, M. (2014). Fostering computational literacy in science classrooms. Communications of the ACM, 57(8), 17–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Wing, J. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Wingfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Wolfz, U., Stone, M., Pearson, K., Pulimood, S. M., & Switzer, M. (2011). Computational thinking and expository writing in the middle school. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 11(2), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Wolters, C. A., Yu, S. L., & Pintrich, P. R. (1996). The relation between goal orientation and students’ motivational beliefs and self -regulated learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 8, 211–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Young, R. A., Valach, L., Paseluikho, M. A., Dover, C., Matthes, G. E., Paproski, D. L., et al. (1997). The joint action of parents and adolescents in conversation about career. Career Development Quarterly, 46, 72–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.George Fox UniversityNewbergUSA

Personalised recommendations