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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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.
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.
Andersen, M. (2005). Thinking about women: A quarter century’s view. Gender and Society, 19(4), 437–455.
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.
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.
Augustine, N. R. (2005). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Ausubel, D. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. New York: Grune & Stratton.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28, 117–148.
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.
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.
Barshay, J. (2011). ‘Blended learning’ for the little ones. Education Week, 31(9), 1–14.
Bell, T., Witten, I., & Fellows, M. (2011). Computer science unplugged. Retrieved from http://csunplugged.org/books/. Accessed 15 Aug 2015.
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.
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.
Boyles, S. R. (2011). Using technology in the classroom. Science Scope, 34(9), 39–43.
Campbell, G., Denes, R., & Morrison, C. (Eds.). (2000). Access denied. Race, ethnicity, and the scientific enterprise. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Cinamon, R. G., & Dan, O. (2010). Parental attitudes toward preschoolers’ career education: A mixed-method study. Journal of Career Development, 37, 519–540.
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.
Clements, D. H., Battista, M. T., & Sarama, J. (2001). Logo and geometry. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education Monograph Series, 10.
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.
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.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
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.
DeJarnette, N. K. (2012). America’s children: Providing early exposure to STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) initiatives. Education, 133(1), 77–84.
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.
DiSessa, A. A. (2000). Changing minds: Computers, learning, and literacy. Cambridge: MIT Press.
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.
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.
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.
Elkind, D. (1982). Piagetian psychology and the practice of child psychiatry. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 21, 435–445.
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.
Ginzberg, E. (1952). Toward a theory of occupational choice. Occupations, 30, 491–494.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine.
Gottfredson, L. (1981). Circumscription and compromise: A developmental theory of occupational aspirations [Monograph]. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 545–579.
Gottfredson, L. S., & Lapan, R. T. (1997). Assessing gender-based circumscription of occupational aspirations. Journal of Career Assessment, 5(4), 419–441.
Gottfried, A. E. (1990). Academic intrinsic motivation in young elementary school children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 525–538.
Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K-12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42, 38–43.
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.
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.
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.
Holland, J. L. (1985). Making vocational choices (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hong, S. (2010). The reciprocal relationship between parental involvement and Mathematics achievement: Autoregressive cross-lagged modeling. Journal of Experimental Education, 78, 419–439.
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.
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.
Ing, M. (2014). Can parents influence children’s mathematics achievement and persistence in STEM careers? Journal of Career Development, 41(2), 87–103.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Kafai, Y. B., & Burke, Q. (2014). Connected code: Why children need to learn programming. Cambridge: MIT Press.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ma, X. (1999). Dropping out of advanced mathematics: The effects of parental involvement. Teachers College Record, 101, 60–81.
Ma, X. (2001). Participation in advanced mathematics: Do expectation and influence of students, peers, teachers and matter? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 132–146.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Moomaw, S. (2012). STEM begins in the early years. School Science and Mathematics, 112(2), 57–58.
Murphy, C., & Beggs, J. (2003). Children’s perceptions of school science. School Science Review, 84, 109–116.
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.
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.
National Academy of Sciences. (2010). Rising above the gathering storm, revisited: Rapidly approaching category (Vol. 5). Washington DC: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council (NRC). (2009). Engineering in K–12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Newhouse, N. (1990). Implication of attitudes and behavior research for environmental Conservation. The Journal of Environmental Education, 22(1), 26–32.
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.
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.
Papanastasiou, C., & Papanastasiou, E. C. (2004). Major influences on attitudes toward science. Educational Research and Evaluation, 10(3), 239–257.
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.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pintrinch, P., & Schunk, D. (2002). Motivation in education. Upper Saddle River: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Program for International Student Assessment. (2012). Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/pisa2012/index.asp.
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.
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.
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.
Reynard, R. (2003). Internet-based ESL for distance adult students—A framework for dynamic language learning. Canadian Modern Language Review, 60(2), 123–143.
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.
Roe, A. (1957). Early determinants of vocational choice. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 4, 212–217.
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.
Sanders, M. (2009, December/January). STEM, STEM education, STEMmania. The Technology Teacher, 20–26.
Seligman, L., & Weinstock, L. (1991). The career development of 10 year olds. Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 25(3), 172–182.
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.
Splete, H., & Freeman-George, A. (1985). Family influences on the career development of young adults. Journal of Career Development, 12, 55–64.
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.
Strauss, C., & Quinn, N. (1997). A cognitive theory of cultural meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tai, R., Liu, C. Q., Maltese, A. V., & Fan, X. (2006). Planning early for careers in science. Science, 312, 1143–1144.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Trice, A. D., & Tillapaugh, P. (1991). Children’s estimates of their parents’ job satisfaction. Psychological Reports, 69, 63–66.
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.
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.
Wahyudi, W., & David, F. T. (2004). The status of science classroom learning environments in Indonesian lower secondary schools. Learning Environment Research, 7, 43–63.
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.
Westermann, E. B. (2014). A half-flipped classroom or an alternative approach?: Primary sources and blended learning. Educational Research Quarterly, 38(2), 43–57.
Wilensky, U., Brady, C., & Horn, M. (2014). Fostering computational literacy in science classrooms. Communications of the ACM, 57(8), 17–21.
Wing, J. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35.
Wingfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68–81.
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.
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.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix 1
1.1 Example Questions from Computational Test
Put these mixed-up instructions for baking a cake in order using only four steps. Write numbers 1–4 next to those steps.
-
Make a salad. ______
-
Pour batter into pan. ______
-
Eat half of the batter. ______
-
Mix ingredients in a bowl. ______
-
Drink some water. ______
-
Bake for 20 min. ______
-
Measure ingredients. ______
Emma is exercising before gym class. Emma does two push-ups. Emma repeats the first step three times, and touches her toes once after each repeat. How many push-ups did Emma do? ________
How many times did she touch her toes? __________
Circle the wrong steps in the sequence.
-
Wake up.
-
Get dressed and eat breakfast.
-
Drive to school
-
Put on your backpack for school.
-
Get in the car.
-
Walk into the classroom.
Appendix B
Example Items from Survey Instrument
1 = strongly disagree | 2 = disagree | 3 = neutral | 4 = agree | 5 = strongly agree |
-
(Self-concept related to STEM)
-
I am good with technology.
-
I am good with science.
-
I am good with math.
-
I am good with engineering (design or inventions).
-
(Perceptions of learning STEM)
-
I learn things quickly in math lessons.
-
I learn things quickly in technology lessons.
-
I learn things quickly in science lessons.
-
I learn things quickly in engineering lessons (design or inventions).
-
(Learning about STEM for later)
-
Studying science is useful for getting a good job in the future.
-
Studying engineering (design or inventions) is useful for getting a good job in the future.
-
Studying science is useful for getting a good job in the future.
-
Studying technology is useful for getting a good job in the future.
-
Studying math is useful for getting a good job in the future.
-
(Parents’ attitudes about STEM)
-
My parents think it is important for me to learn about technology.
-
My parents think it is important for me to learn about engineering (design or inventions).
-
My parents think it is important for me to learn about science.
-
My parents think it is important for me to learn about math.
-
(Goals/aspirations in STEM)
-
I would like to study more about technology in the future.
-
I would like to study more about math in the future.
-
I would like to study more about engineering (design or inventions) in the future.
-
I would like to study more about science in the future.
-
(Future job-STEM related)
-
It is important for me to use technology in my future job.
-
It is important for me to use math in my future job.
-
It is important for me to use science in my future job.
-
It is important for me to use engineering (design or inventions) in my future job.
2.1 Please write down some answers to these questions
-
What kind of job do you want when you grow up?
-
What makes this job enjoyable to you?
2.2 Circle one
Are you a boy or girl? | BOY | GIRL |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tran, Y. Computer Programming Effects in Elementary: Perceptions and Career Aspirations in STEM. Tech Know Learn 23, 273–299 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9358-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9358-z