A 21st Century Teaching and Learning Approach to Computer Science Education: Teacher Reactions

  • Jake Rowan Byrne
  • Lorraine Fisher
  • Brendan Tangney
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 583)

Abstract

This paper describes a pilot study to evaluate its use for teacher Continuing Professional Development (CPD) in Computer Science (CS) using the Bridge21 model, a particular model of 21st century teaching and learning. A range of introductory Computer Science workshops are evaluated that include topics such as; Computational Thinking, Scratch, Raspberry Pi and Python. This paper includes a detailed look at the generalized activity model used in all Bridge21 activities. Combining the Kirkpatrick training evaluation theory with ethnographic methods the researchers analyzed qualitative and quantitative data gathered from 110 in-service teachers whom attended 9 CS CPD workshops. Using the Kirkpatrick framework as a taxonomy with which to code data relating to (a) teachers initial reactions towards the workshops and (b) intentions towards use of the Bridge21 model for supporting CS classroom delivery. Findings indicate that teachers’ initial reactions towards the programme were positive and that teachers intend to use the model in their classroom.

Keywords

Teacher continuing professional development Computer science Evaluation 21st century learning 

References

  1. 1.
    Beetham, H., Sharpe, R.: Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital Age: Designing for 21st Century Learning. Taylor and Francis, Oxon (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bell, T., Alexander, J., Freeman, I., Grimley, M.: Computer science unplugged: school students doing real computing without computers. New Zealand J. Appl. Comput. Inf. Technol. 13(1), 20–29 (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bray, A., Tangney, B.: Mathematics, technology interventions and pedagogy-seeing the wood from the trees. In: The CSEDU (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brown, N.C.C., Sentance, S., Crick, T., Humphreys, S.: Restart: the resurgence of computer science in UK schools. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. (TOCE) 14(2), 1–22 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brown, T., Wyatt, J.: Design thinking for social innovation. Dev. Outreach 12(1), 29–43 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bybee, R.W., Fuchs, B.: Preparing the 21st century workforce: a new reform in science and technology education. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 43(4), 349–352 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Byrne, J.R., Fisher, L., Tangney, B.: Computer science teacher reactions towards raspberry Pi continuing professional development (CPD) workshops using the Bridge21 model. In: The IEEE International Conference on Computer Science and Education, Cambridge, UK (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Conneely, C., Murchan, D., Tangney, B., and Johnston, K.: 21st century learning–teachers’ and students’ experiences and views of the Bridge21 approach within mainstream education. In: The Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cunny, J.: Transforming computer science education in high schools. Computer 44(6), 107–109 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S.: The discipline and practice of qualitative research. In: Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S. (eds.) The Landscape of Qualitative Research, pp. 1–42. Sage Publications Ltd., Thousand Oaks (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fee, S.B., Holland-Minkley, A.M.: Teaching computer science through problems, not solutions. Comput. Sci. Educ. 20(2), 129–144 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fisher, L.: Evaluating use of the Bridge21 model for teacher continuous professional development (CPD) in computer science (CS). In: 11th European Evaluation Society Biennial Conference (EES), Dublin, IE (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hazzan, O., Lapidot, T., Ragonis, N.: Teaching Methods in Computer Science Education Guide to Teaching Computer Science: An Activity-Based Approach, pp. 91–118. Springer, London (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hein, G.E.: The constructivist museum. J. Educ. Mus. 16, 21–23 (1995)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kirkpatrick, D.L.: Evaluating: Part of a Ten-Step Process Evaluating Training Programs- The Four Levels, pp. 3–16. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Fransisco (1994)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kirkwood, M.: Infusing higher-order thinking and learning to learn into content instruction: a case study of secondary computing studies in Scotland. J. Curriculum Stud. 32(4), 509–535 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kristiansen, N.: Making smile sheets count Infoline No. 250402. In: Kirkpatrick D.L. (ed.) The Four Levels of Evaluation Measurement and Evaluation Tips, Tools, and Intelligence for Trainers, 7(1), p. 3. American Society for Training and Development (ASTD), USA (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Conneely, C., Lawlor, J., Tangney, B.: Towards a pragmatic model for group-based, technology-mediated, project-oriented learning–an overview of the B2C model. In: Lytras, M.D., et al. (eds.) TECH-EDUCATION 2010. CCIS, vol. 73, pp. 602–609. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    LeCompte, M.D., Schensul, J.J.: Using Constant Comparison and Analytical Induction to Identiy Items Analyzing and Interpreting Ethnographic Data, pp. 75–78. Altamira Press, London (1999)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lier, L.V.: Action-based teaching, autonomy and identify. Int. J. Innov. Lang. Learn. Teach. 1(1), 46–65 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Medina, J.A., Sanchez, J.J., Garcia-Lopez, E., Garcia-Cabot, A.: Learning outcomes using objectives with computer science students. In: The Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (2014)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
  23. 23.
    NCCA: Short Course - Digital Media Literacy (2014b). http://www.curriculumonline.ie/Junior-cycle/Short-Courses/Digital-Media-Literacy
  24. 24.
    Noonan, S.J.: 21st Century Learners and Pedagogy in Teacher Effectiveness and Learner-Centred Practice How Real Teachers Learn to Engage All Learners, pp. 71–72. Rowman and Littlefield Education, Plymouth (2013)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    O’Donovan, D.: Enquiry based Learning at Bridge21 (2015). https://sites.google.com/site/enquirybasedlearningatbridge21/home
  26. 26.
    O’Grady, M.J.: Practical problem based learning in computing education. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. 12(3), 10 (2012)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Petersen, C.I., Gorman, K.S.: Strategies to address common challenges when teaching in an active learning classroom. In: Baepler, P., Brooks, D.C., Walker, J.D. (eds.) Active Learning Spaces, vol. 137, pp. 63–71. Wiley, Hoboken (2014)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rosen, M.: Coming to terms with the field: understanding and doing organizational ethnography. J. Manag. Stud. 28(1), 1–24 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sentance, S., Dorling, M., McNicol, A.: Computer science in secondary schools in the UK: ways to empower teachers informatics in schools. In: Diethelm, I., Mittermeir, R.T. (eds.) ISSEP 2013. LNCS, vol. 7780, pp. 15–30. Springer, Berlin (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Silva, E.: Measuring skills for 21st-century learning. Phi Delta Kappan 90(9), 630–634 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tedlock, B.: Ethnography and ethnographic representation. In: Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S. (eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research, pp. 455–486. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (1994)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Vygotsky, L.S.: Interaction between learning and development. In: Cole, M., John-Steiner, V., Scribner, S., Souberman, E. (eds.) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes, pp. 79–91. Harvard University Press, London (1978)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wells, G.: Towards a social constructivist model of learning and teaching dialogic inquiry. In: Towards a Sociocultural Practice and Theory of Education, vol. 1, pp. 335–337. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1991)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Yadav, A., Korb, J.T.: Learning to teach computer science: the need for a methods course. Commun. ACM 55(11), 31–33 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jake Rowan Byrne
    • 1
  • Lorraine Fisher
    • 1
  • Brendan Tangney
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Education and School of Computer Science and Statistics, Centre for Research in IT in Education (CRITE)Trinity College Dublin, The University of DublinDublinIreland

Personalised recommendations