Introduction

In recent years, research in technology education has displayed an increasing interest in issues concerning teachers’ understanding of their roles as educators, their perception of the teaching, and their views on the purpose of teaching technology (Brink et al., 2021; Gill, 2021). Furthermore, the STEM-paradigm (as described by e.g., Tang & Williams, 2019) has brought the ontological and epistemological issues of technology education and engineering education closer together. This, together with the contemporary ambition to include computational thinking and digital literacy as an integral component of general education, has broadened the scope of technology education research and given technology as a school subject an important role in preparing students for a more digitised society. Here, scholars such as Vinnervik (2022), Larsson and Stolpe (2022) and Strawhacker et al. (2018) have made recent contributions to the field.

The introduction of new educational technology in classrooms has put teachers in a precarious situation. To be able to navigate this fast-developing, high-tech educational landscape, teachers need to constantly develop their professional skills (Qian et al., 2018). Hence, “today’s teachers are commissioned to transpose advanced technology, for teaching and learning […] based on their epistemic attitude, beliefs and former teaching experiences.” (Rolandsson et al., 2017, p. 446) A consequence of this is that both subject content and the pedagogical approach reflected in the classroom will vary depending on the individual teacher (Pischetola, 2022). The fast-developing technology also means that the educators’ own personal knowledge and skills will quickly become outdated, both in relation to how technology is used and how it is or can be connected to specific content knowledge. There is also, both in the Swedish and international contexts, a lack of teachers qualified for teaching programming in upper secondary technology education (Reinsfield & Lee, 2021; Skolverket, 2022). According to Swedish official statistics, only about half of those teaching programming in upper secondary schools (Swe: gymnasium) are formally qualified programming teachers (Skolverket, 2022). This forces schools to employ teachers with varying educational or vocational backgrounds – for example, engineers or program developers. Thus, the programming teachers are a heterogeneous group with different knowledge and beliefs, stemming from their diverse backgrounds (Qian & Lehman, 2017).

Prior research show that teachers on a day-to-day basis face challenges related to, for example, their own lack of formal education, students’ varying knowledge of subject matter, or STEM integration initiatives (Margot & Kettler, 2019; Vinnervik, 2022). However, there are, at least to our knowledge, few empirical studies exploring how teachers’ backgrounds (e.g., education, previous vocational experiences, previous programming experiences) influence their pedagogical approach in the classroom. Researchers such as Erickson and Pinnegar (2017), Worden-Chambers (2020), and Alger (2009) argue that studying teachers’ use of conceptual metaphors could be one way of approaching such issues. Recent contributions by, for example McGarr (2022), Saeli et al. (2011), and Barendsen et al. (2014) indicates that this may be a way to capturing the nature of a recent subject content such as programming.

Consequently, the aim of this case study is to explore the interplay between a teacher’s knowledge and beliefs about teaching, and how this knowledge is enacted in their teaching practice. More specifically, the study aims to identify on the interplay between teachers’ conceptual metaphors in relation to the tacit elements of their teaching practices. Also, connections between teachers’ knowledge and their backgrounds will be discussed. The following research questions will be posed and answered:

  1. 1.

    What explicit and tacit dimensions of teachers’ knowledge and beliefs are manifested in their reflections on action?

  2. 2.

    How are teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about teaching enacted in their teaching practice?

Teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge

A teacher’s Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) involves knowing how to use different teaching strategies, i.e., transforming subject content knowledge into a teachable form and being able to create suitable learning experiences for every student (de Miranda, 2017; Shulman, 1986). Over time, PCK has proven to be a reliable paradigm for telling “something of the unique professional experience that constitutes teaching” (Kind, 2009, p. 198), i.e., that which separates the knowledge of the teachers’ profession from any other professions. Here, various PCK frameworks (see e.g., Carlson et al., 2019; Doyle et al., 2019; Gess-Newsome, 2015; Shulman, 1986) have proven useful for conceptualizing teachers’ enactment of teaching in the classroom. Understanding teachers’ PCK, according to Shulman (1986), requires “go[ing] beyond knowledge of the facts or concepts of a domain. It requires understanding the structures of the subject-matter […] what makes learning of specific topics easy or difficult” (p. 9). As PCK is domain specific and contextualised (Carlson et al., 2019; Shulman, 2015), it will vary in relation to, for example, subject content taught, student groups or access to technology in the classroom, and the way in which individual teachers’ notions of what may be of importance in the classroom seems to vary among teachers (Fahrman et al., 2020) and change over time (Sjöberg & Nyberg, 2020). Therefore, PCK is inarguably specific to the situation.

PCK research has largely focused on science and mathematics education – however, scholars have attempted to problematise the PCK concept and adapt it to the unique traits of technology education (de Miranda, 2017; Doyle et al., 2019; Fox-Turnbull, 2019; Gill, 2021; Jones & Moreland, 2004; Williams & Lockley, 2012). Altogether, this indicates that PCK research may serve as a valid tool for modelling the relation between teachers’ knowledge and beliefs and their actions in the classroom. For example, Fahrman et al. (2020) show that experienced technology teachers, despite agreeing on what may be considered as central content knowledge in technology education, differ in how they focus their teaching and how they view the purpose of teaching technology. Gill (2021) also uses a PCK frame to elucidate the developmental pathways of pre-service technology teachers’ pedagogical and technical knowledge and skill. He points out the importance of teaching as a reciprocal activity that is not unidirectional, but rather one in which both the students and the expert teacher increase their expertise.

A recent way of understanding teachers’ PCK is reflected in the refined consensus model (RCM) for PCK (see Carlson et al., 2019). Central to the RCM model is that teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about, for example, their students, their own understanding of the subject content, or their curricular knowledge will shape how they transform the subject content that is to be taught (Carlson et al., 2019). Additionally, the model also recognises teachers’ interaction with students, and colleagues as integral parts of understanding classroom practices. This study concerns what is termed enacted PCK (ePCK). “The specific knowledge and skills utilised by an individual teacher in a particular setting, with a particular student or group of students with a goal for those students to learn a particular concept, collection of concepts, or a particular aspect of the discipline” (Carlson et al., 2019, p. 85), “ePCK is visible in the teacher’s expression of knowledge, choice of instructional strategies and representations, articulation of rationale for specific pedagogical moves”.

A teacher’s ePCK is generated during the planning (ePCKP), enactment (ePCKT) and reflection (ePCKR) phase of a particular lesson in a particular classroom at particular time. Hence, ePCK can be seen as the sub-set of the knowledge base that teachers draw from when making choices ‘on the fly’, parts of which the teacher is unaware of (Barendsen & Henze, 2019). This, and complex dynamics of a classroom, makes it hard to elucidate a teacher’s ePCK.

Erickson and Pinnegar (2017) argue that one way to reveal these tacit dimensions of teachers’ knowledge and beliefs, (i.e., their ePCK) is to explore their use of metaphors. The researchers argue that metaphors “make visible conceptions of actions and beliefs holding them in particular relationship to each other” (p. 107). In the study, the researchers asked experienced teachers to construct metaphors that they thought were representative for themselves as teachers. The teachers were then asked to describe and elaborate on the meaning. Afterwards, they were requested to evaluate their own metaphor use in relation to, for example, lesson plans and classroom narratives. The results of the study showed that these so-called ‘self-generated metaphors’ can capture the individual identity of each teacher in the study, and how they perceive their role, obligations, and duties of teaching. However, even though this approach reveals some aspects of the teachers’ identity, it still presupposes that the teacher to some extent is able to explicate the different elements of the generated metaphors. In other words, this approach to metaphor research is limited to elucidating the PCK components of which the teachers are aware. However, in this study, we want to take the approach one step further to face the challenge of elucidating both the tacit and explicit components of three teachers’ PCK.

Underpinning this study is the assumption that our language and thoughts are reflections of how we have come to understand the world in relation to previous physical experiences. These experiences give raise to so called conceptual metaphors that in turn is manifested in metaphorical expression and meaning (see e.g., Lakoff & Johnson, 1980b, 1999). Consequently, we argue that one way to explore teachers’ ePCK is to (1) investigate what central conceptual metaphors that are manifested in narratives about their classroom activities, and (2) if/how these metaphors are enacted throughout the whole classroom observation.

Conceptual metaphor theory

Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) as described by (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980b) postulates a connection between the meaning of the first example and the embodied experience described by the latter. This connection (‘the conceptual metaphor’) acts as our underlying ‘knowledge’ of the abstract concept that an Idea is an Object (see Lakoff & Johnson, 1980b) and will greatly affect how we use our language. Take, for example, the expression “I get it!” Often, this expression is related to one’s understanding of an idea. However, in its most literal sense, ‘get’ means “to gain possession of [for example an object]”. There are other similar instances grounded in the ‘same’ connection between the embodied experience of ‘gaining possession of an object’ and what can be described as a metaphorical object. One such example would be the metaphorical expression ‘getting data’, here the conceptual metaphor Data is an Object (see Larsson and Stolpe, 2022) is connected to the embodied experience of ‘gaining possession of’. Therefore, the metaphorical expression suggests that ‘getting data’ from, for example, a database can be understood in relation to the programmer’s previous physical experiences of acquiring objects. Similarly, all other metaphorical expressions of our thoughts and speech can act as leads when exploring how we make sense of the tacit and explicit dimensions of our knowledge and beliefs, of which we are not always aware.

Methodology

The context of the study

This study has its empirical base in the Swedish upper secondary technology programme. The programme acts as a bridge between elementary school technology education and university-level STEM education. One important element in the technology programme is computer programming. The three teachers were selected based on their teaching rather than their personal background and hence, they reflect the diversity that can be expected in Swedish classrooms (see Larsson and Stolpe, 2022).

Data collection

The data for this study comprise video recordingsFootnote 1 of the teachers’ actions in the classroom and videorecorded Episodic Narrative Interviews (ENI) (see e.g., Flick, 2000; Mueller, 2019) to capture their pedagogical reflections. One of the main assumptions underpinning ENI is that people make sense of their experiences by creating opportunities for ‘storytelling’; “an inherently human process that requires little more than adequate prompting” (Mueller, 2019, p. 5). At its core, ENI is face-to-face data collection that focuses on a specific phenomenon bounded in a specific context and studied during a short timeframe (Mueller, 2019). Barendsen and Henze (2019) argue that “stimulated recall interviews based on recordings of classroom situations are possible methods to capture … ePCK” (p. 210). Moreover, ENI becomes a suitable data collection method to capture teachers’ knowledge and beliefs by analysing the metaphors used in their discussion about their teaching. The following is a detailed description of how the data have been collected, constructed, and analysed.

The classroom observations

The classroom observations were recorded using two cameras – one tripod-mounted, and one handheld. The stationary cameras were placed at approximately 45 degree off-axis, facing the teachers. The handheld camera was mostly used to capture any unexpected classroom interaction. In preparation for the classroom observation, the teachers had been asked to perform a regular lesson with their regular class. Consequently, the observed lessons vary in terms of subject content, framing and disposition. However, as this is reflective of how the Swedish upper secondary school system works, we argue that this strengthens the ecological validity of this case study. Prior to the study, the teachers and the students were provided with information about the overall purpose of the observation [for a more detailed description, please consult Larsson and Stolpe (2022)]. At the time of the observation, all participants had provided us with their written consent. After the data collection, the teachers were provided with more detailed descriptions about the aims of the research, as well as a brief summary of our initial analysis. Subsequently, the teachers were asked anew whether they wished to continue or withdraw their participation in the study.

The episodic narrative interviews

During the ENIs, the teachers were asked to reflect on video observations of their own practice. Moreover, the teachers were asked to elaborate on the context of the lesson, technical terms, and provide relevant personal information. Consequently, the ENIs take on the form of stimulated recall (see e.g., Lyle, 2003). The video clips used as stimuli during the interviews were selected based on (1) the teachers’ use of metaphors in speech and gestures (see Larsson and Stolpe, 2022), and (2) situations that were unclear to the researchers (e.g., containing technical terms, or specific pedagogical strategies). The events were selected by the two researchers prior to the interviews and were shown to the teachers following the chronology of the lesson. Consequently, the video clips served as a guide for the interviews. All interviews were videorecorded using one tripod-mounted camera facing the informant. Both Authors were present and engaged during the interview. To remain consistent over the three interviews, Author 2 acted as a main interviewer, while Author 1 mainly focused on follow-up questions and making sure that issues concerning the technological aspects of the observed lessons were covered. In total, the three interviews lasted for 116 min, rendering data consisting of 9380 words.

Data construction

To reduce the data corpus, we have employed an approach where our initial understanding of the classroom observations served as a guide for which parts of the teachers’ narratives to bring forward for further analysis. Furthermore, quantitative measures have been utilised to aid us in capturing relevant ePCK components. This process was performed in two stages: Firstly, verbatim transcripts of each interview were analysed with respect to the total number of words and total number of unique words. Secondly, sentences including words occurring less than three times in an interview or without any apparent connections to the context of the study were removed from the corpus. In the last stage small narratives capturing the teachers’ reflection on their teaching practice were created.

Data analysis

The analysis of each narrative has been performed as follows: Firstly, all teachers’ utterances were coded deductively in relation to the RCM. Here, all utterances related to preparing or designing a lesson were marked as ePCKP; all utterances describing a lesson sequence or directly related to the classroom observations were marked as ePCKT; and all utterances related to, e.g., reasons for a specific action or general comment in relation to an event were marked as ePCKR. In some cases, our initial coding generated an inconclusive result. In such cases, the utterances were coded in relation to more than one of the three categories. Secondly, the Procedure for Identifying Metaphorical Scenes (PIMS) (Falck & Okonski, 2022) was used to identify metaphors reflected in language that reflects our teachers’ way of thinking in terms of physical experiences (Larsson et al., 2022). Based on this information, we have been able to formulate conceptual metaphors (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980b) that underpin the programming teachers’ narratives about their teaching. The analysis has been performed using Swedish transcripts and subsequently translated into English to better suite an international readership.

Results

The following two-part section unfolds the central findings of the study. The section is structured as follows: First, we give detailed descriptions of the context surrounding each case (e.g., the background of each teacher, the structure of the observed lesson). Moreover, we provide excerpts from, and our deductive analysis of the ENIs. In a second sub-section, we present the results of the PIMS-analysis.

Case A – the programming teacher

Lennie works in a public upper-secondary school located in the centre of a mid-sized Swedish city. He has a teacher’s degree in both programming and English and is a teacher formally qualified to teach several different programming courses. Over the years, he has been teaching different programming courses, but he has also been teaching subjects such as interaction design and project management. In addition, Lennie has been developing computer science pedagogy and has also been engaged in extracurricular activities at his school.

The theme for the observed lesson was retrieving data from a database. The lesson was divided into four different sessions: (1) a lecture concerning the term ‘function’; (2) an activity where three students were engaged in re-enacting the behaviour of a programming concept in front of the rest of the class; (3) a lecture based on said activity; and (4) a final part of the lecture where Lennie lectured and wrote code simultaneously. During the final part of the lecture, the students were seated at their stationary workstations, enabling them to watch screen casts of Lennie’s programming activities on the screen. During this part, the students were facing the walls of the classroom. The rest of the time, the students were positioned in a conference setting in front of a whiteboard.

Lennie describes his group as the students who “weren’t satisfied with [the course Programming 1]”. According to Lennie, the students seemed to enjoy the first part of this course (web server programming). However, when transitioning towards the more complex and low-level JavaScript programming, Lennie felt the need to revisit the basic principles of programming. Therefore, the subject content for the observed lesson originates from the mandatory course Programming 1.

Building toolbox

In the interview, Lennie states that a big part of his teaching concerns getting the students to understand the most basic programming principles. Lennie terms this as ‘building [a] toolbox’ (ePCKT). For this lesson, he wanted the students to ‘see the use of [a programming tool]’ (ePCKp). Lennie believes that such insights are ‘the key to this group’ (ePCKR). To him, the most important thing as a teacher is to ‘build a stable base’ (ePCKT, ePCKR).

Lennie’s narrative displays a relation between teaching and building. This implies that he thinks of himself as a constructor of objects (programming tools) that can be used to repair something. However, based on the context and the conceptual metaphor Ideas are Objects (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980b), we argue that Lennie thinks about teaching as showing the students how to use individual programming tools that eventually will be able to support new tools. In that sense, Lennie’s narrative reveals both an abstract and tangible nature to teaching, where programming is strongly related to intellectual goods. Furthermore, his attention to ‘building a stable base’ indicates that he thinks that fixating the students’ basic ideas of programming is important.

Learning a language?

Later in the interview, Lennie tells us that some students like to use programming languages that are unfamiliar to him. When asked about how he handles this, he says that he “ask[s] them to describe the problem” (ePCKT) and that they discuss “possible conceptual solutions, what are your objectives? What’s your goal? How do you want to solve it?” (ePCKT). “The next step is to … explore if there are specific functions available in that particular language” (ePCKP). He says that this “is part of the deal” (ePCKR); the students are free to choose how to approach a problem as long as they can “explain how it works afterwards” (ePCKP).

Lennie’s narrative shows a relation between programming in a hitherto unfamiliar language and describing the nature of the problem that is supposed to be solved. One critical aspect when solving a problem is being able to describe a specific situation or scenario in some manner of communication. Furthermore, one has to be able to say or understand the purpose that the specific language is providing for the students. Moreover, the student needs to provide Lennie with a clear understanding of the situation that needs to be solved.

Case B – the scientist

Robert works at a public upper secondary school located in a town in Sweden. He lacks a teacher’s degree and has formal education in neither computation nor computer science. Robert has, however, gained a lot of programming experience while working as a researcher prior to his present position at the school. At the time of the observation, Robert has almost completed his first year as a teacher. Hence, everything about his teaching practice is relatively new.

For this observation, Robert had chosen to deviate from the project on which the students were working on the course. Instead, the observed lesson concerns calculating the multiplicative persistence of an integer (a mathematical construction that determines how often one must replace the number by the sum or product of its digits until one reaches a single digit) – an assignment that was recommended to him by a colleague. The lecture part of the lesson was divided into four sections: (1) an introductory part where Robert introduced the concept of multiplicative persistence to the class; (2) the screening of a part of a YouTube clip where a simple solution to the problem was suggested; (3) a section where Robert describes his way to solve the assignment; and (4) the screening of the rest of said YouTube clip.

Combine mathematics and programming

In his interview, Robert says that he thinks that “it’s fun to be able to combine mathematics and programming” (ePCKR) and he feels that “programming is a powerful tool for doing maths” (ePCKR). Consequently, he usually brings lesson assignments to the students and tries to get them to program something “mathematical”. He says that it “is a conscious strategy to catch them [the students’ attention] … by combining this math and programming” (ePCKP). The objective for this lesson was to “solve mathematical problems using programming” (ePCKP). But he “also found the assignment quite amusing” himself (ePCKR). On the question of whether he thinks that the students also found the assignment amusing, he says that it probably depends on their programming skills. However, Robert stresses, that he “spend[s] a lot of time on those who struggle” and believes that “it is important that [he] can provide those who are more skilled with a challenge” (ePCKR).

Robert’s narrative reveals relations between gaining power over the functions of the computer to study and/or solve mathematical problems. He sees this connection as an amusing way to work with programming. Therefore, this teaching method has become a way of taking hold of – what we interpret as – the students’ ideas (see the conceptual metaphor Ideas are Objects). Robert has, however, noticed that he has to provide the students with a lot of his time in order for them to enjoy programming. In that sense, time becomes one of his most valuable assets (see the conceptual metaphor Time is a Resource as described by Lakoff and Johnson (1980a) in relation to the students.

Keep up with my explanations

When watching the video recordings, Robert says that “I should have told them beforehand!” (ePCKR). Elaborating on the classroom situation, he says that “the problem with these lessons is that you don’t have a lot of time to prepare. You sit down to write the code, think through it and then walk through it once more” (ePCKR). When reflecting on the lesson, he eventually says that he maybe should have done everything in another way – “maybe I should in some ways have prepared more on the [white]board beforehand” (ePCKR). After having explained the assignment, he concludes that “this is a complex task! [laughter] without a doubt. It is even hard to walk you through it here” (ePCKR). Once more, Robert addresses the limited amount of time. “Maybe I should have prepared the code in another way. I wrote it quite spontaneously and thought it was hard to keep up with my own explanations” (ePCKR).

Robert’s narrative tells that he sees time as an asset for him as a teacher. He needs the time to prepare properly for each lesson. Judging from his way of speaking, preparing for a lesson is roughly the same as solving a programming problem step-by-step. Judging by the use of the word ‘keep’, it seems like Robert needs something to ‘hold on to’ when solving a problem. Judging from the narrative, it is reasonable to suggest that this ‘something’ is the code.

Case C – the experienced craftsman

The experienced craftsman works at a public upper secondary school located in a small town in Sweden. The experienced craftsman has a teacher’s degree in music but has not worked in a music classroom for a long time. Instead, the experienced craftsman spent some time working as a systems developer before getting hired as a teacher. One of the first things the experienced craftsman did when starting his service was to create a technical infrastructure that allowed him to plan his lessons so that they reflect real-world programming. Consequently, at the time of the observation, the experienced craftsman is constantly rethinking his practice.

The observed lesson concerns validation of data, and is a part of a bigger design project that the students were engaged in. Johannes’ lecture is based around a section of code that had been prepared prior to the lesson. The lecture was structured as follows: (1) an introductory section where the experienced craftsman wanted to place the section of code into context; (2) a section walking the students through the code; and (3) a closing part where the experienced craftsman sums up what he has noticed while engaging with the students. During the whole lesson, the experienced craftsman used a projector to show the students the code that he was referring to.

I have learned what works

The assignment of the day was to determine the type of data being inputted by an end user of an application. This is important because, as Johannes puts it – “[the data] has to fit into a database, or else it [the program] will turn to shit. So, from that perspective it [the assignment] comes from a practical perspective” (ePCKP). Elaborating on this, he says that his pragmatic approach to programming stems from experience gained when working full time as a system developer. He says, “I have learned what works and what does not work” (ePCKR). “Not that academically correct maybe, but anyway, it is more about what you can do and what you’re not allowed to do in order for a system to work … so that it remains a healthy system” (ePCKR).

Based on his narrative, Johannes seems determined to bring ‘real-world programming’ closer to his students. This is accomplished by introducing the students to problems that they would need to solve if they were to develop a product. One dimension that can be identified in the narrative is that the students will have to face challenges in a component level and a system level.

Taken together, Johannes’ narratives can be seen as a manifestation of how he now understands his previous role as a programmer. This includes the ability to solve relatively tangible tasks, as well as understanding a larger technical system that must be controlled by the computer.

Communicate in the code

Another issue about which Johannes is concerned is communication. He wants the students to “communicate inside their code and with their code and with the computer” (ePCKT). They also should be able to communicate “with themselves in the now and with themselves in six months’ time and with colleagues” (ePCKT).

Johannes’ narrative indicates that communication is a crucial skill that the students need to learn, and probably will develop over time. This is something that Johannes has learnt while working as a systems developer. Communication, according to Johannes, happens at different levels. Here, our analysis suggests that communication can be understood in relatively literal terms, except in the case of communicating “with the code”. We base this on the fact that ‘communication’ presupposes a two-way conversation between the code and the programmer. Hence, the code (the symbols on the screen) needs to be understood in relation to the language of a human being. Consequently, programming – in Johannes’ eyes – is a lot like speaking.

Take a step back

At the end of the interview, Johannes is asked about his choice to end the lesson by speaking about troubleshooting the code. After looking at a video sequence, he says that it might have something to do with what a student had done during the lesson. Something that reminded him of his own experiences from the night before. “[When] you change something, test it right away!”, he says, “because if it does not work, you just have to take one step back” (ePCKT). Jokingly he adds that “it’s the code I’m talking about, but it’s also a way of life… you go from one thing to the other…” (ePCKR). Johannes is certain that the students get his point. “You go from one code segment to the next, make a change there and move on to the next […] It’s so fundamental and good practice to test right away” (ePCKT). In a final sentence, Johannes adds that “I’ve probably said it before and will say it many times more […] They [the students] do not spend eight hours a day doing this [in school], so they won’t be able to do these kinds of mistakes…” (ePCKR).

Based on the narrative and the context of the lesson, we argue that this narrative is based around learning how to save time. Here, time is regarded as a resource in the same manner as money is a resource (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980a). This is a metaphor that is made explicit in relation to the importance of naming variables in a practical rather than an academically correct manner, dividing the code into sections, properly indenting the code lines to create a “beautiful code”, as well as writing comments in the code in an unambiguous manner.

In addition, Johannes speaks about the importance of being able to troubleshoot in an efficient way. As seen in the narrative, he has created a conscious strategy for identifying faulty code segments by tracking the programming process backwards and trying to find the conditions for which the program was functioning.

Metaphors for teaching

Teaching is firmly fixating students’ ideas

The first metaphorical scene is based on the lexical meaning of (1) building (‘to make something by putting bricks or other materials together’), (2) tool (‘a piece of equipment that you use with your hands to make or repair something’), (3) toolbox (‘a container with tools’), (4) seeing (SEEING IS UNDERSTANDING (Grady, 1997)) the use of the tool in relation to teaching, and (5) stable base, as conveyed by Lennie. Here, PIMS suggests that Teaching is Firmly fixating students’ ideas of a container of equipment that can be used to make or repair a program.Footnote 2 Lennie’s narrative, in combination with the classroom observations, reveals several examples indicating that Lennie’s actions are motivated by this metaphor. For example, during the interviews, Lennie spends a lot of time trying to explain different programming concepts instead of reflecting on his actions in the classroom (e.g., comparing a sorting algorithm with the sorting hat from Harry Potter movies, or explaining how a particular application was developed by another programmer). Furthermore, the metaphor can be seen in situations where Lennie uses analogies (e.g., a list of household chores) to demonstrate how to write a function. Here, even though the list of chores is generated by the students, it is still apparent that the analogy is Lennie’s. Moreover, as Lennie adapts the order of the list, it is inarguably so that he actively tries to provide the students with as clear examples as possible. Additionally, the metaphor is also enacted in how the classroom is organised. During the main part of the lessons, where Lennie speaks about programming ideas in general terms, the students are seated at a conference table right in front of the whiteboard.

However, when demonstrating the assignment of the day, the students are seated at their workstations, watching screen casts of Lennie’s coding process. This way, Lennie is able to show the students the meaning and action of each line of code while being able to put ‘the bigger picture’ on display (see Larsson et al., 2021). One such example would be the concept of ‘drilling’ – a metaphor that is related to the handling of physical equipment that can be used when repairing and making stuff and, hence, yet another enactment of the suggested metaphor.

Teaching is identifying a situation that needs attention

The second metaphorical scene concerns Lennie’s way of teaching students using unfamiliar programming languages. This scene is based around Lennie’s concepts of (1) describing (‘to say or write what someone or something is like’), (2) problem (‘a situation, person, or thing that need attention and needs to be dealt with and solved’), (3) a tool for solving the problem and (4) exploring (‘to search and discover’) the language (‘a system of communication consisting of sounds, words, and grammar’). From the narrative, we deduce that Lennie considers exploring programming tools (i.e., learning to say or write something about them, or communicating using natural language and/or programming language) to be crucial for teaching and/or learning a new language. Furthermore, he thinks that this is an ability that the students need to be able to show him when learning to program using a language unfamiliar to Lennie. In a sense, this way of working with the students may transform situations so that the student who wants to use a new language will be given the role of the teacher, while Lennie will take on the role of the learner. We suggest that all this can be related back to the conceptual metaphor Teaching is saying or writing a situation that needs attention and needs to be solved in a clear and understandable way using a system of communication. Worth noting is that Lennie does not speak about what system of language the students need to use. However, as they are required to explore the built-in functions of a language, this way of teaching requires that the students have a good understanding of what ‘tool’ they are going to need to solve a problem. This is something that Lennie is aware of and, consequently, he will not allow students to try out new languages.

We argue that this metaphor is enacted by Lennie on multiple occasions during the classroom observation. For example, he adopts different approaches to explain the same concept during the lesson, and, during the interview, he speaks about the importance of trying to find ways to communicate programming in ways that students can relate to (e.g., frame a programming task in a way that will appeal to the students, or using analogical reasoning). It is only when standing at his computer that he specifically speaks in terms of code.

Teaching is providing students with equipment

The third metaphorical scene is based on the metaphorical meanings of (1) tool, (2) mathematics (‘the study of numbers, shapes, and space using reason and usually a special system of symbol and rules for organising them’), and (3) resources in relation to teaching, as conveyed by Robert. In the same manner as Lennie, Robert speaks about programming in relation to tools. However, while Lennie speaks about tools with a purpose of solving programming problems, Robert highlights programming as a tool for solving mathematical problems. We thus suggest that – even though they both focus on problem solving – Robert’s approach to teaching is best described by the conceptual metaphor Teaching is Providing students with equipment that can be used to study numbers using reasoning and a special system of symbols. This metaphor can be seen as the (in)famous Conduit-metaphor (Reddy, 1979). Hence, Robert’s narrative can be understood as an implication of him assuming that the students will learn from his example. This is enacted throughout the classroom observation, where a lot of subject content focuses on demonstrating his own solution to the students. Furthermore, when helping the students with their tasks, Robert often refers back to his owns solution. At times, he also uses his example to elaborate on how to solve the mathematical problem. This implicit Conduit metaphor is also present in the interview. Here, Robert spends a lot of time trying to explain a possible solution to the programming task, rather than explaining how it had been relevant from a subject content perspective. From the interview, it is also clear that he sees himself as a resource for students’ learning process (a Teacher is a Resource), in the same way as time is a resource for planning and money is a resource for trade (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980a). We argue, therefore, that Robert regards teaching as an investment in the students’ programming ability. This can in turn be expressed in relation to the conceptual metaphor Teaching is Giving parts of the existence that is measured in minutes […] to provide students with control over an electronic machine that can be used to study numbers using reasoning and a special system of symbols. Taken together, these metaphors imply that Robert sees himself as a valuable asset for the students in the sense that learning presupposes the presence of a teacher – or, at least, for the students who are having a hard time programming.

A version of Robert’s investment metaphor is found in Lennie’s deal metaphor. As both metaphors are grounded in a logic of business, we argue that both metaphors imply that there exist: (1) a silent agreement between a teacher and student where the student has the role of the buyer of knowledge, and the teacher plays the role of supplier of knowledge, and (2) a silent agreement that the student needs to ‘pay’ to gain the supplied knowledge. This introduces an asymmetry of power in the classroom that can be noticed in events such as when the students’ suggestions or solutions are marginalised by the teachers, or in the teacher keeping track of time or making decisions on how to plan a lesson. Nonetheless, Robert’s narrative also reveals that time also becomes an issue when it comes to planning and preparing lessons. In his case, a lot of this time is spent on writing code, i.e., performing the same task as the students are supposed to do – another indication that the conduit metaphor is affecting Robert’s teaching practice even outside the classroom.

Teaching is bringing experience into consideration

The fourth metaphorical scene is based around the Johannes’ idea of designing assignments that come from a practical perspective. From our initial identification of metaphors, we suggest that this can be described with the conceptual metaphor Planning is Designing assignments that bring experience and real situations into consideration for the students. This is not a conceptual metaphor that has a connection between an embodied experience and an abstract phenomenon – rather it is based around Johannes’ background as a programmer, his experiences from teaching, and his ability to keep up with how new technology is being introduced within the programming industry. From the classroom observations, it is clear that this conceptual metaphor underpins almost all activity. For example, Johannes has made sure that they use a programming language that is used by app developers. Also, he has designed the course so that the main assignment is to develop a working smartphone application. Moreover, he constantly refers to issues such as always thinking about the end-user perspective of a product, and the importance of spending as little time as possible on troubleshooting (Time is a Resource, Time is Money). Another aspect that becomes apparent in Johannes’ metaphors is that a programmer needs to be able to work with small assignments, but also to understand how small changes may affect the whole system. This is something that requires a mental effort by the programmer or programmers working in a project. For this reason, Johannes emphasises the importance of communication. Based on this, we argue that Johannes sees communication as an integral part of programming. Here, we suggest that this may be described with the conceptual metaphor Programming is Translating switching between natural language and programming language. This implies that learning to program is much like learning to speak in another language. From the classroom observation, we argue that this is reflected in many of Johannes’ teaching strategies. For example, he is keen on explaining specific commands prior to providing the students with their assignments. Furthermore, he provides the students with prepared code examples before the lessons. Judging from the activities in the classroom, the students seem used to helping each other to solve problems, to the extent that they are urged to ‘steal’ code from each other. Furthermore, it is apparent that Johannes considers programming as a collective effort, partly because he generally speaks to more than one student at a time, and partly because he seems to take advantage of the students’ mistakes to help them address the issues once more.

Discussion and conclusions

The overarching aim of this study has been to explore the interplay between a teacher’s knowledge and beliefs about teaching, and how this is enacted in their teaching practice. To achieve this aim, teachers’ conceptual metaphors have been (1) identified, and (2) used to construct metaphorical scenes. The results of the study reveal the following.

Firstly, it is clear that the three teachers share a common ground concerning, for example, the view that programming is an activity where smaller pieces of code can be intertwined in ways so that they can achieve a purpose. However, they all describe their teaching differently, which is in line with for example Fahrman et al. (2020). While Lennie speaks about himself as a builder, and sometimes also a foreman, Robert presents an idea where he is a supplier of knowledge. Johannes, on the other hand, seems to think of himself as someone who can bring real-world experience to the student, rather than merely academic credits. A reasonable conclusion to draw is that this is a consequence of their previous educational and vocational experiences (Doyle et al., 2019). This shows that a teacher will use knowledge acquired from many different areas of expertise. Furthermore, it shows that other kinds of knowledge than programming subject content knowledge can be a resource when teaching programming at an upper secondary level.

Secondly, we argue that all three teachers see themselves as assets for the students’ achievements. But as the results show that the teachers think about their roles differently, they also imply that the teachers see themselves as assets for both future craftsmen (Lennie’s students), future mathematicians (Robert’s students), and future system developers (Johannes’ students). Such differences can also be found in educational literature (Larsson, 2022), which likely could affect how the students understand their work. Most plausibly, such differences will affect the practical side of programming rather than the theoretical. Here, more research is needed.

Thirdly, the results of the study indicate that writing code does not seem to be a key component when it comes to learning programming. Both Johannes and Lennie speak about being able to communicate and/or understand what the code represents, while Robert presents it as a way for him to demonstrate the solution to a problem. However, even though it is never made explicit by the teachers, a prerequisite for the type of communication proposed by Johannes and Lennie is that the students already are able to either (1) translate between the programming language of choice and the natural language spoken in the classroom, or (2) are familiar with the generic aspects of the programming tools needed to solve a problem. If not, the students will need to follow the lead of the teacher instead of trying to find their own solutions to their problems.

Fourthly, the results of the study show that it – at least in the cases reported in this study – is possible to identify events in which a teacher’s knowledge and beliefs about teaching are enacted in the classroom. This means that it is reasonable to suggest that our conceptual metaphors affect not only our language, but also our actions in the classroom (Larsson, 2022; Gibbs, 2019). Here, PIMS seems to be a suitable approach to identify metaphors and construct metaphorical scenes. Furthermore, as there seems to exist a connection between language and action, it seems reasonable to argue that adopting a multimodal approach to metaphor analysis may be a viable way of acquiring more knowledge about how teachers’ knowledge and beliefs affect their action in the classroom (Larsson and Stolpe, 2022; Larsson et al., 2022).

Final remarks

As this is a case study based on three teachers’ personal experiences from the classrooms, we do not make any attempts to make any generalisable claims about the nature of teachers’ metaphors and how they are connected to the classroom. However, from the results of the study, it is reasonable to suggest that a study of this kind, would result in the emergence of equally divergent metaphors. This would indicate that analysing teachers’ systematic reflection over their action may provide valuable insight for their professional development as teachers. This way of explicating the differences among teachers’ action may also serve as a valuable asset when discussing different approaches in the classroom, as well as when assessing and/or developing teachers’ professional skills.

Apart from highlighting disparate teaching concepts, this study provides a clue about the nature of programming and programming education in three Swedish classroom. In that sense, a study such as this may provide valuable insights in how a subject content is taught in practice. Such insight may serve as case examples during discussions concerning teachers’ professional development, but also as an evidence-based tool for assessing the emergence of a novel subject content or to evaluate the effects of for example a STEM-education initiative.