research-article

An International Study Piloting the MEasuring TeacheR Enacted Computing Curriculum (METRECC) Instrument

Authors:

Katrina Falkner,

Rebecca Vivian,

Sarah Barksdale,

Leonard Busuttil,

Elizabeth Cole,

Christine Liebe,

Francesco Maiorana,

Monica M. McGill,

Keith QuilleAuthors Info & Claims

ITiCSE-WGR '19: Proceedings of the Working Group Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education

Pages 111 - 142

https://doi.org/10.1145/3344429.3372505

Published: 18 December 2019 Publication History

Abstract

As the discipline of K-12 computer science (CS) education evolves, international comparisons of curriculum and teaching provide valuable information for policymakers and educators. Previous academic analyses of K-12 CS intended and enacted curriculum has been conducted via curriculum analyses, country reports, experience reports, and case studies, with K-12 CS comparisons distinctly lacking teacher input.

This report presents the process of an international Working Group to develop, pilot, review and test validity and reliability of the MEasuring TeacheR Enacted Computing Curriculum (METRECC) instrument to survey teachers in K-12 schools about their implementation of CS curriculum to understand pedagogy, practice, resources and experiences in classrooms around the world. The Working Group reviewed and analysed pilot data from 244 teachers across seven countries (Australia, England, Ireland, Italy, Malta, Scotland and the United States). We analysed the pilot results (n=244) and applied four validity tests: face validity, concurrent validity, population validity, sampling validity and construct validity, in addition to a focus group to further revised the instrument.

This report presents the pilot results and outcomes of validity testing, as well as revisions made to the instrument. The resulting METRECC tool combines a country report template and a teacher survey that will provide K-12 teachers with a means to communicate their experience enacting CS curriculum. National and regional policymakers can use METRECC data to inform iterative curriculum revision and implementation. We provide open access to the METRECC instrument and data set.

References

[1]

2018. 2018 State of Computer Science Education. Technical Report. https: //code.org/files/2018{_}state{_}of{_}cs.pdf

[2]

John Ainley and Ralph Carstens. 2018. Teaching and Learning Int'l. Survey (TALIS) 2018 Conceptual Framework. 187 (2018). https://doi.org/https://doi. org/10.1787/799337c2-en

[3]

Mansour M. Al-Sulaiman. 1999. A Computing Curriculum for Technical High Schools in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. J. King Saud Univ. Comput. Inf. Sci. 11 (Jan. 1999), 85--104. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1319--1578(99)80005--6

[4]

Giovanni Apolone and Paola Mosconi. 1998. The Italian SF-36 Health Survey: translation, validation and norming. Journal of clinical epidemiology 51, 11 (1998), 1025--1036.

[5]

Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA). 2015. Australian Curriculum: Digital Technologies. http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/. (2015).

[6]

Anja Balanskat and Katja Engelhardt. 2014. Computing our future Computer programming and coding - Priorities, school curricula and initiatives across Europe. Technical Report. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465--7295.200

[7]

A. Bandura. 2006. Guide for Constructing Self-Efficacy Scales. Age Information Publishing, Greenwich. 307--337 pages.

[8]

Albert Bandura. 2006. Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents. 307--337. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004

[9]

Erik Barendsen, NataÅa Grgurina, and Jos Tolboom. 2016. A new informatics curriculum for secondary education in The Netherlands. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics). https://doi.org/10.1007/978--3--319--46747--4{_}9

[10]

Erik Barendsen, Linda Mannila, Barbara Demo, NataÅa Grgurina, Cruz Izu, Claudio Mirolo, Sue Sentance, Amber Settle, and Gabriel- Stupurien?e. 2015. Concepts in K-9 Computer Science Education. In Proceedings of the 2015 ITiCSE on Working Group Reports - ITICSE-WGR '15. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858796. 2858800

Digital Library

[11]

T. Bell, P. Andreae, and A. Robins. 2014. A case study of the introduction of Computer Science in NZ schools. ACM Transactions on Computing Education 14 (2014), 1--31.

Digital Library

[12]

Carlo Bellettini, Violetta Lonati, Dario Malchiodi, Mattia Monga, Anna Morpurgo, Mauro Torelli, and Luisa Zecca. 2014. Informatics education in Italian secondary schools. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE) 14, 2 (2014), 15.

[13]

Susan Bergin. 2006. A computational model to predict programming performance. Ph.D. Dissertation. Maynooth University.

[14]

Susan Bergin. 2006. A computational model to predict programming performance. Ph.D. Dissertation. Maynooth University.

[15]

Marie Bienkowski and Eric Snow. 2017. Studying Implementation of Secondary Introductory Computer Science: Pilot Results (Abstract Only). In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '17). ACM, NY, NY, USA, 703--703. https://doi.org/10.1145/3017680. 3022432

Digital Library

[16]

Jonathan Black, Jo Brodie, Paul Curzon, Chrhttps://www.overleaf.com/project/5d2843014a4c0d57d252435bystie Myketiak, Peter Mcowan, and Laura R. Meagher. 2013. Making computing interesting to school students: Teachers' perspectives. Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, ITiCSE, 255--260. https://doi.org/10.1145/2462476.2466519

Digital Library

[17]

Rolf K. Blank, Andrew Porter, and John Smithson. 2001. New Tools for Analysing Teaching, Curriculum and Standards. Results from Survey of Enacted Curriculum Project. Technical Report. CCSO, Washington, DC.

[18]

N Brown, M Kölling, T Crick, S Peyton Jones, S Humphreys, and S Sentance. 2013. Bringing computer science back into schools: lessons from the UK. In 44th ACM technical symposium on Computer Science education. ACM, Denver, Colorado, USA, 269--274.

[19]

Neil C. C. Brown, Sue Sentance, Tom Crick, and Simon Humphreys. 2014. Restart: The Resurgence of Computer Science in UK Schools. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. 14, 2, Article 9 (June 2014), 22 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/2602484

Digital Library

[20]

L. Burstein, L.M. McDonnell, J. Van Winkle, T. Ormseth, J. Mirocha, and G.Guitton. 1995. Validating national curriculum indicators. (1995).

[21]

Eric M. Camburn, Seong Won Han, and James Sebastian. 2017. Assessing the Validity of an Annual Survey for Measuring the Enacted Literacy Curriculum. Educational Policy 31, 1 (2017), 73--107. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904815586848 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904815586848

[22]

Michael E Caspersen, Judith Gal-Ezer, Andrew McGettrick, and Enrico Nardelli. 2018. Informatics for All The strategy. (2018).

[23]

Charalambos Y. Charalambous and George N. Philippou. 2010. Teachers' concerns and efficacy beliefs about implementing a mathematics curriculum reform: integrating two lines of inquiry. Educational Studies in Mathematics 75, 1 (01 Sep 2010), 1--21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-010--9238--5

[24]

Vanea Chiprianov and Laurent Gallon. 2016. Introducing Computational Thinking to K-5 in a French Context. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education - ITiCSE '16. https://doi.org/10.1145/2899415.2899439

Digital Library

[25]

Penny Clunies""Ross, Emma Little, and Mandy Kienhuis. 2008. Self""reported and actual use of proactive and reactive classroom management strategies and their relationship with teacher stress and student behaviour. Educational Psychology 28, 6 (10 2008), 693--710. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410802206700

[26]

Jacob Cohen. 1960. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and psychological measurement 20, 1 (1960), 37--46.

[27]

Computer Science for ALL Students (CSForALL). 2019. Common Data Collection Survey and Support Document. (2019). https://www.csforall.org/projects_and_ programs/rppforcs-resources-for-projects

[28]

Jacqueline Corricelli, Seth Freeman, and Chinma Uche. [n. d.]. CS for CT: Examining the Landscape of Computer Science in Connecticut. Technical Report. ECEP Alliance.

[29]

Lee J Cronbach. 1951. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. psychometrika 16, 3 (1951), 297--334.

[30]

Lee J Cronbach and Paul E Meehl. 1955. Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological bulletin 52, 4 (1955), 281--302.

[31]

Oracle Academy CSTA. 2014. Results from the CSTA-Oracle Academy 2014 U.S. High School CS Survey:. (2014). https://www.csteachers.org/documents/ en-us/51ef16d4--1bfe-44b6--81aa-0f3682baeb79/1

[32]

CSTA Research Committee. 2015. CSTA National Secondary School Computer Science Survey 2015. Technical Report. https://www.csteachers.org/page/ high-school-surveys

[33]

P. Curzon, T. Bell, J. Waite, and M. Dorling. 2019. Computational thinking. Cambridge University Press. 513--546 pages.

[34]

Valentina Dagiene. 2008. Teaching Information Technology and Elements of Informatics in Lower Secondary Schools: Curricula, Didactic Provision and Implementation. In Proceedings of the 3rd Int'l. Conf. on Informatics in Secondary Schools - Evolution and Perspectives: Informatics Education - Supporting Computational Thinking (ISSEP '08). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 293--304. https://doi.org/10.1007/978--3--540--69924--8_27

[35]

Valentina Dagiene, T Jevsikova, Carsten Schulte, Sue Sentance, and N Thota. 2013. A comparison of current trends within Computer Science teaching in school in Germany and the UK. In International Conference on Informatics in Schools (ISSEP), Ira Diethelm (Ed.). Oldenburg, Germany, 63--75.

[36]

Joy-Anne D'Anca. 2017. Mindset and Resilience: An Analysis and Intervention for School Administrators. Ph.D. Dissertation. St. John's University (New York), School of Education and Human Services.

[37]

Adrienne Decker and Monica M. McGill. 2019. A Topical Review of Evaluation Instruments for Computing Education. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education - SIGCSE '19. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 558--564. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287324.3287393

Digital Library

[38]

Peter J. Denning, Douglas E Comer, David Gries, Michael C. Mulder, Allen Tucker, A. Joe Turner, and Paul R Young. 1989. Computing as a discipline. Computer 22, 2 (1989), 63--70.

Digital Library

[39]

Department for Education. 2013. The National Curriculum in England. Department for Education Government of UK, Crown, Cheshire.

[40]

Marie desJardins and Susan Martin. [n. d.]. CE21-Maryland: The State of Computer Science Education in Maryland High Schools. Proceedings of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education ([n. d.]), 711--716.

[41]

Directorate for Learning and Assessment Programmes. 2019. SEC Syllabus (2019): Computing. https://www.um.edu.mt/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/292310/SEC09.pdf. (2019).

[42]

Ellen A Drost et al. 2011. Validity and reliability in social science research. Education Research and perspectives 38, 1 (2011), 105.

[43]

Caitlin Duncan and Tim Bell. 2015. A pilot computer science and programming course for primary school students. In Proceedings of the Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education. ACM, 39--48.

Digital Library

[44]

Carol S. Dweck. 2008. Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House Digital, Inc.

[45]

Education Scotland. 2017. Benchmark Technologies. education. gov.scot/improvement/documents/technologiesbenchmarkspdf.pdf. (2017).

[46]

Katrina Falkner, Sue Sentance, Rebecca Vivian, Sarah Barksdale, Leonard Busuttil, Monica M Mcgill, and Keith Quille. 2019. An International Comparison of K-12 Computer Science Education Intended and Enacted Curricula. In Koli Calling. Koli, Finland, (in publication).

[47]

Katrina Falkner and Rebecca Vivian. 2015. A review of Computer Science resources for learning and teaching with K-12 computing curricula: an Australian case study. Computer Science Education 25, 4 (2015), 390--429. https: //doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2016.1140410

[48]

Katrina Falkner, Rebecca Vivian, and Sally-Ann Williams. 2018. An ecosystem approach to teacher professional development within computer science. Computer Science Education 28, 4 (10 2018), 303--344. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 08993408.2018.1522858

[49]

Cheri Fancsali, Linda Tigani, Paulina Toro Isaza, and Rachel Cole. 2018. A Landscape Study of Computer Science Education in NYC. Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), 44--49. https://doi.org/10.1145/3159450.3159467

Digital Library

[50]

Italo Fiorin et al. 2018. Indicazioni nazionali e nuovi scenari. Documento a cura del Comitato Scientifico Nazionale per le Indicazioni Nazionali per il curricolo della scuola dell"infanzia e del primo ciclo di istruzione. (2018).

[51]

Luca Forlizzi, Michael Lodi, Violetta Lonati, Claudio Mirolo, Mattia Monga, Alberto Montresor, Anna Morpurgo, and Enrico Nardelli. 2018. A core informatics curriculum for italian compulsory education. In Int'l. Conf. on Informatics in Schools: Situation, Evolution, and Perspectives. Springer, 141--153.

[52]

Judith Gal-Ezer, Catriel Beeri, David Harel, and Amiram Yehudai. 1995. A High School Program in Computer Science. Computer 28, 10 (Oct. 1995), 73--80. https://doi.org/10.1109/2.467599

Digital Library

[53]

Adam Gamoran, Andrew C. Porter, John Smithson, and Paula A. White. 1997. Upgrading High School Mathematics Instruction: Improving Learning Opportunities for Low-Achieving, Low-Income Youth. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 19, 4 (1997), 325--338. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737019004325 arXiv:https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737019004325

[54]

Walter Gander, Antoine Petit, GÃrard Berry, Barbara Demo, Jan Vahrenhold, Andrew McGettrick, Roger Boyle, MichÃle Drechsler, Avi Mendelson, Chris Stephenson, Carlo Ghezzi, and Bertrand Meyer. 2013. Informatics Education: Europe Cannot Afford to Miss the Boat. Technical Report. Association for Computing Machinery &, Joint Informatics Europe ACM Europe Working Group on Informatics Education, New York. 1--21 pages.

[55]

Gerald J. Haeffel and George S. Howard. 2010. Self-Report: Psychology"'s Four-Letter Word. The American Journal of Psychology 123, 2 (2010), 181. https: //doi.org/10.5406/amerjpsyc.123.2.0181

[56]

Paul Gilster and Paul Glister. 1997. Digital literacy. Wiley Computer Pub. New York.

[57]

Hai Hong, Jennifer Wang, and Sepehr Hejazi Moghadam. 2016. K-12 Computer Science Education Across the U.S. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 142--154. https://doi.org/10.1007/978--3--319--46747--4{_}12

[58]

Anita M. Hubley and Bruno D. Zumbo. 2013. Psychometric characteristics of assessment procedures: An overview. In APA handbook of testing and assessment in psychology, Vol. 1: Test theory and testing and assessment in industrial and organizational psychology. American Psychological Association, Washington, 3--19. https://doi.org/10.1037/14047-001

[59]

Peter Hubwieser, Michal Armoni, and Michail N. Giannakos. 2015. How to Implement Rigorous Computer Science Education in K-12 Schools? Some Answers and Many Questions. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (2015). https://doi.org/10.1145/2729983

Digital Library

[60]

Peter Hubwieser, Michail N. Giannakos, Marc Berges, Torsten Brinda, Ira Diethelm, Johannes Magenheim, Yogendra Pal, Jana Jackova, and Egle Jasute. 2015. A Global Snapshot of Computer Science Education in K-12 Schools. In ITiCSE Working Group Reports. ACM, Vilnius, Lithuani, 65--83. https: //doi.org/10.1145/2858796.2858799

Digital Library

[61]

Peter Hubwieser, Sigrid Schubert, Michal Armoni, Torsten Brinda, Valentina Dagiene, Ira Diethelm, Michail N. Giannakos, Maria Knobelsdorf, Johannes Magenheim, and Roland Mittermeir. 2011. Computer science/informatics in secondary education. In Proceedings of the 16th annual conference reports on Innovation and technology in computer science education - working group reports - ITiCSE-WGR '11. https://doi.org/10.1145/2078856.2078859

Digital Library

[62]

Petri Ihantola, Arto Vihavainen, Alireza Ahadi, Matthew Butler, JÃrgen BÃrstler, Stephen H. Edwards, Essi Isohanni, Ari Korhonen, Andrew Petersen, Kelly Rivers, Miguel Ãngel Rubio, Judy Sheard, Bronius Skupas, Jaime Spacco, Claudia Szabo, and Daniel Toll. 2015. Educational data mining and learning analytics in programming: Literature review and case studies. ITiCSE-WGP 2015 - Proceedings of the 2015 ITiCSE Conference on Working Group Reports (2015), 41--63.

Digital Library

[63]

Indiana ECEP Alliance. 2017. Status of K-14 Computer Science Education in Indiana: Landscape Report. Technical Report. https://ecepalliance.org/resources/ landscape-reports

[64]

Barbara Jones and Suzanne L Flannigan. 2006. Connecting the digital dots: Literacy of the 21st century. Educause Quarterly 29, 2 (2006), 8--10.

[65]

Ilkka Jormanainen. 2018. On Computer Science Major Students' Motivation in a Practically Oriented Robotics Course. In Proceedings of the 18th Koli Calling Int'l. Conf. on Computing Education Research (Koli Calling '18). ACM, NY, NY, USA, Article 29, 2 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3279720.3279749

Digital Library

[66]

Caroline Kearney and Àgueda Gras-Velázquez. 2015. eTwinning Ten Years On: Impact on teachers" practice, skills, and professional development opportunities, as reported by eTwinners. Central Support Service of eTwinning-European Schoolnet, Brussels. Disponible en:[En línea].[Consulta: 10 de octubre de 2017] (2015).

[67]

Alexander Kurz, Stephen Elliott, Joseph H. Wehby, and John Smithson. 2010. Alignment of the Intended, Planned, and Enacted Curriculum in General and Special Education and Its Relation to StudentAchievement. The Journal of Special Education 44 (11 2010), 131--145. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466909341196

[68]

Laura R. Larke. 2019. Agentic neglect: Teachers as gatekeepers of England"'s national computing curriculum. British Journal of Educational Technology 50, 3 (2019), 1137--1150.

[69]

Clifford H Lee and Elisabeth Soep. 2016. None but ourselves can free our minds: Critical computational literacy as a pedagogy of resistance. Equity & Excellence in Education 49, 4 (2016), 480--492.

[70]

A.H Licht, E. Tasiopoulou, and P. Wastiau. 2017. Open Book of Educational Innovation. European Schoolnet, Brussels.

[71]

Francesco Maiorana. 2019. Interdisciplinary Computing for STE(A)M: a low Floor high ceiling curriculum. In Proceedings of the Association for Teacher Education in Europe (ATEE) Spring Conference. University of Latvia, 37--52.

[72]

Linda Mannila, Amber Settle, Valentina Dagiene, Barbara Demo, Natasa Grgurina, Claudio Mirolo, and Lennart Rolandsson. 2014. Computational Thinking in K-9 Education. https://doi.org/10.1145/2713609.2713610

Digital Library

[73]

Robert J Marzano and John S Kendall. 2006. The new taxonomy of educational objectives. Corwin Press.

[74]

Mary L McHugh. 2012. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochemia medica: Biochemia medica 22, 3 (2012), 276--282.

[75]

Orni Meerbaum-Salant, Michal Armoni, and Mordechai (Moti) Ben- Ari. 2010. Learning Computer Science Concepts with Scratch. In Proceedings of the Sixth Int'l Workshop on Computing Education Research (ICER '10). ACM, NY, NY, USA, 69--76. https://doi.org/10.1145/1839594.1839607

Digital Library

[76]

F. Moller and T. Crick. 2016. A National Engagement Model for Developing Computer Science Education in Wales. In The 9th International Conference on Informatics in Schools,. Munster, Germany, 1--13.

[77]

Jacqui Murray. 2018. Technology in the Classroom: What is Digital Literacy. TeachHub. com, www. teachhub. com/technology-classroom-what-digitalliteracy. (2018).

[78]

National Council for Curriculum and Assessment. 2018. Computer Science Curriculum Specification. https://www.curriculumonline.ie/Senior-cycle/Senior- Cycle-Subjects/Computer-Science. (2018).

[79]

National Network of Education Research Practice Partnerships. 2019. Research- Practice Partnerships (RPP) for CS common data collection 9--12. Personal communication. (2019).

[80]

Adina Nistor, Jesus Clemente-Gallardo, Takis Angelopoulos, Karolina Chodzinska, Maria Clemente Gallardo, Agata Gozdzik, Agueda Gras-Velazquez, A Grizelj, Katrien Kolenberg, Despoina Mitropoulou, et al. 2019. Bringing Research into the Classroom--The Citizen Science approach in schools. Scientix Observatory (2019).

[81]

Victo Nolet and Margaret J. McLaughlin. 2000. Accessing the general curriculum: Including students with disabilities in standards-based reform. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

[82]

Outlier Research & Evaluation. 2017. BASICS Study ECS Teacher Implementation and Contextual Factor Questionnaire Measures [Measurement scales]. (2017). http://outlier.uchicago.edu/basics/resources/ MeasuresTeacherImplementation/

[83]

Birgit Pepin, Ghislaine Gueudet, and Luc Trouche. 2013. Investigating textbooks as crucial interfaces between culture, policy and teacher curricular practice: two contrasted case studies in France and Norway. ZDM 45, 5 (2013), 685--698.

[84]

Paul R. Pintrich, David A. F. Smith, Teresa Garcia, and Wilbert J. McKeachie. 1991. A Manual for the use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences 6, 1 (1991), 156-164.

[85]

Andrew C. Porter and John L. Smithson. 2001. Defining, Developing and Using Curriculum Indicators. CPRE Research Reports, 12--2001. (2001).

[86]

Paige Prescott, Irene A. Lee, and Kersti Tyson. 2019. Teacher Beliefs in Student Capabilities As a Mediating Factor in a Novel Understanding of Enactment of CT Curriculum. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '19). ACM, NY, NY, USA, 1277--1277. https: //doi.org/10.1145/3287324.3293841

Digital Library

[87]

Keith Quille and Susan Bergin. 2016. Programming: Further Factors that Influence Success. In Psychology of Programming Interest Group (PPIG), 7th to 10th Spetember, University of Cambridge. University of Cambridge.

[88]

Keith Quille and Susan Bergin. 2018. Programming : Predicting Student Success Early in CS1 . A Re-validation and Replication Study. In 23rd Annual ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE'18). 15-20.

Digital Library

[89]

Keith Quille and Susan Bergin. 2019. CS1 : how will they do ? How can we help ? A decade of research and practice research and practice. Computer Science Education 29 (2019), 254--282. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2019.1612679

[90]

Keith Quille, Susan Bergin, and Aidan Mooney. 2015. PreSS #, A Web-Based Educational System to Predict Programming Performance. International Journal of Computer Science and Software Engineering (IJCSSE) 4 (2015), 178--189.

[91]

Keith Quille, Natalie Culligan, and Susan Bergin. 2017. Insights on Gender Differences in CS1 : A Multi- institutional, Multi-variate Study . ACM, New York, NY, USA, 263--268. https://doi.org/10.1145/3059009.3059048

Digital Library

[92]

Janine Remillard and Daniel Heck. 2014. Conceptualizing the curriculum enactment process in mathematics education. ZDM 46 (10 2014), 705--718. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-014-0600--4

[93]

Morris Rosenberg. 1965. Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

[94]

Morris Rosenberg. 2015. Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton university press.

[95]

Daisy W. Rutstein, Yuning Xu, Kevin McElhaney, and Marie Bienkowski. 2019. Developing Implementation Measures for K-12 Computer Science Curriculum Materials. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '19). ACM, NY, NY, USA, 321--327. https://doi.org/ 10.1145/3287324.3287424

Digital Library

[96]

Alan Schoenfield. 2011. How We Think. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/ 10.4324/9780203843000

[97]

S Schrire and D Levy. 2012. Troubleshooting MOOCs: the case of a Massive Open Online Course at a college of education. (2012), 761--766 pages. http: //www.editlib.org/p/40832

[98]

Carsten Schulte, Malte Hornung, Sue Sentance, Valentina Dagiene, Tatjana Jevsikova, Neena Thota, Anna Eckerdal, and Anne-Kathrin Peters. 2012. Computer science at school/CS teacher education: Koli working-group report on CS at school. In Proceedings of the 12th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research. ACM, 29--38.

Digital Library

[99]

Deborah Seehorn, Stephen Carey, Brian Fuschetto, Irene Lee, Daniel Moix, Dianne O'Grady-Cunniff, Barbara Boucher Owens, Chris Stephenson, and Anita Verno. 2011. CSTA K-12 Computer Science Standards, Computer Science Teachers Association. ACM, New York.

[100]

Cynthia Selby and JohnWoollard. 2013. Computational thinking: the developing definition. (2013).

[101]

Sue Sentance, Simon Humphreys, and Mark Dorling. 2014. The network of teaching excellence in computer science and master teachers. In Proceedings of the 9th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education. ACM, 80--88.

Digital Library

[102]

John Smithson and Rolf K. Blank. 2006. Indicators of Quality of Teacher Professional Development and Instructional Change Using Data from Surveys of Enacted Curriculum: Findings from NSF MSP-RETA Project. CCSSO.

[103]

Robert H. Stupnisky, Allison BrckaLorenz, Bridget Yuhas, and Frédéric Guay. 2018. Faculty members' motivation for teaching and best practices: Testing a model based on self-determination theory across institution types. Contemporary Educational Psychology 53 (2018), 15--26.

[104]

Maciej M. Syso and Anna Beata Kwiatkowska. 2015. Introducing a New Computer Science Curriculum for All School Levels in Poland. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics). 141--154. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978--3--319--25396--1{_}13

[105]

The Royal Society. 2012. Shut down or restart? The way forward for computing in UK schools. Technical Report. London. https://royalsociety.org/~/media/ education/computing-in-schools/2012-01--12-computing-in-schools.pdf

[106]

The Royal Society. 2017. After the reboot: Computing education in UK schools. Technical Report. The Royal Society, London, United Kingdom. 1--116 pages. royalsociety.org/computing-education

[107]

David Thompson and Tim Bell. 2013. Adoption of New Computer Science High School Standards by New Zealand Teachers. In Proceedings of the 8th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSE '13). ACM, NY, NY, USA, 87--90. https://doi.org/10.1145/2532748.2532759

Digital Library

[108]

David Thompson, Tim Bell, Peter Andreae, and Anthony Robins. 2013. The Role of Teachers in Implementing Curriculum Changes. In Proceeding of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE '13). ACM, NY, NY, USA, 245--250. https://doi.org/10.1145/2445196.2445272

Digital Library

[109]

William Trochim. 2006. Web Center for Social Research Methods. https://www. socialresearchmethods.net. (2006).

[110]

Siny Tsang, Colin F Royse, and Abdullah Sulieman Terkawi. 2017. Guidelines for developing, translating, and validating a questionnaire in perioperative and pain medicine. Saudi journal of anaesthesia 11, Suppl 1 (2017), S80.

[111]

Sepehr Vakil. 2014. A critical pedagogy approach for engaging urban youth in mobile app development in an after-school program. Equity & Excellence in Education 47, 1 (2014), 31--45.

[112]

Gilbert A Valverde, Leonard J Bianchi, Richard G Wolfe, William H Schmidt, and Richard T Houang. 2002. According to the book: Using TIMSS to investigate the translation of policy into practice through the world of textbooks. Springer Science & Business Media.

[113]

Jan van den Akker, Wilmad Kuiper, and Uwe Hameyer. 2004. Curriculum Perspectives: An Introduction. In Curriculum Landscapes and Trends. Springer Dordrechtds, Dordrecht, Chapter 1, 1--10. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978--94-017--1205--7

[114]

Maarten van Veen, Fred Mulder, and Karel Lemmen. 2004. What is Lacking in Curriculum Schemes for Computing/Informatics?. In Proceedings of the 9th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE '04). ACM, NY, NY, USA, 186--190. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 1007996.1008046

Digital Library

[115]

Rebecca Vivian and Katrina Falkner. 2018. A Survey of Australian Teachers' Self-efficacy and Assessment Approaches for the K-12 Digital Technologies Curriculum. In Proceedings of the 13th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (WiPSCE '18). ACM, NY, NY, USA, Article 5, 10 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3265757.3265762

Digital Library

[116]

Rebecca Vivian, Katrina Falkner, and Nickolas Falkner. 2014. Addressing the challenges of a new digital technologies curriculum: MOOCs as a scalable solution for teacher professional development. Research in Learning Technology 22 (Aug. 2014). https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v22.24691

[117]

Jennifer Wang, Hai Hong, Jason Ravitz, and Sepehr Hejazi Moghadam. 2016. Landscape of K-12 computer science education in the US: Perceptions, access, and barriers. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education. ACM, 645--650.

Digital Library

[118]

Chris Watkins and Peter Mortimore. 1999. Pedagogy: What do we know. Understanding pedagogy and its impact on learning (1999), 1--19.

[119]

Mary Webb, Niki Davis, Tim Bell, Yaacov J Katz, Nicholas Reynolds, Dianne P Chambers, and Maciej M Sys?o. 2017. Computer science in K-12 school curricula of the 2lst century: Why, what and when? Education and Information Technologies 22, 2 (3 2017), 445--468. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-016--9493-x

Digital Library

[120]

Drew Westen and Robert Rosenthal. 2003. Quantifying construct validity: two simple measures. Journal of personality and social psychology 84, 3 (2003), 608.

[121]

JeannetteMWing. 2008. Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 366, 1881 (2008), 3717--3725.

[122]

Gary KW Wong, Ho Yin Cheung, Edwin CC Ching, and John MH Huen. 2015. School perceptions of coding education in K-12: A large scale quantitative study to inform innovative practices. In 2015 IEEE International Conference on Teaching, Assessment, and Learning for Engineering (TALE). IEEE, 5--10.

[123]

Aman Yadav, Sarah Gretter, Susanne Hambrusch, and Phil Sands. 2016. Expanding computer science education in schools: understanding teacher experiences and challenges. Computer Science Education 26, 4 (2016), 235--254.

[124]

Andreas Zendler, O William McClung, and Dieter Klaudt. 2015. A cross-cultural comparison of concepts in computer science education: The US-Germany experience. The International Journal of Information and Learning Technology 32, 4 (2015), 235--256.

[125]

Andreas Zendler, Christian Spannagel, and Dieter Klaudt. 2010. Marrying content and process in computer science education. IEEE Transactions on Education 54, 3 (2010), 387--397.

Digital Library

Cited By

Maiorana FCsizmadia ACristaldii GRiedesel C(2024)Education With PassionNavigating Computer Science Education in the 21st Century10.4018/979-8-3693-1066-3.ch007(129-148)Online publication date: 8-Mar-2024
https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-1066-3.ch007
Childs KWaite J(2024)Funds of identity and culturally responsive computing: K-5 teachers' adaptations to computing resourcesProceedings of the 19th WiPSCE Conference on Primary and Secondary Computing Education Research10.1145/3677619.3678106(1-10)Online publication date: 16-Sep-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3677619.3678106
Sentance SWhyte RKirby D(2024)Exploring Transformative Professional Development Within K-12 Computing EducationInformatics in Schools. Innovative Approaches to Computer Science Teaching and Learning10.1007/978-3-031-73474-8_11(139-151)Online publication date: 27-Oct-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-031-73474-8_11
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

An International Study Piloting the MEasuring TeacheR Enacted Computing Curriculum (METRECC) Instrument
1. Social and professional topics
  1. Professional topics
    1. Computing education
      1. Adult education
      2. K-12 education

Recommendations

An International Benchmark Study of K-12 Computer Science Education in Schools
ITiCSE '19: Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education

There has been a growing interest and increase in work shared about national K-12 Computer Science Education (CSED) curriculum and implementation efforts around the world. Much of this work focuses on curriculum analysis, country reports, experience ...
Computer Science Education in North-Rhine Westphalia, Germany—A Case Study
Special Issue II on Computer Science Education in K-12 Schools

In North-Rhine Westphalia, the most populated state in Germany, Computer Science (CS) has been taught in secondary schools since the early 1970s. This article provides an overview of the past and current situation of CS education in North-Rhine ...
Making computing interesting to school students: teachers' perspectives
ITiCSE '13: Proceedings of the 18th ACM conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education

It is widely agreed that there is a need to excite more school students about computing. Considering teachers' views about student engagement is important to securing their support for any solution. We therefore present the results of a qualitative, ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

ITiCSE-WGR '19: Proceedings of the Working Group Reports on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education

December 2019

218 pages

ISBN:9781450375672

DOI:10.1145/3344429

Co-chairs:
Guido Rößling
TU Darmstadt, Germany
,
Michail Giannakos
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway
,
General Chairs:
Bruce Scharlau
University of Aberdeen, UK
,
Roger McDermott
Robert Gordon University, UK
,
Program Chairs:
Arnold Pears
KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden
,
Mihaela Sabin
University of New Hampshire, USA

Copyright © 2019 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

SIGCSE: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 18 December 2019

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Conference

ITiCSE '19

Sponsor:

SIGCSE

ITiCSE '19: Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education

July 15 - 17, 2019

Aberdeen, Scotland Uk

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 552 of 1,613 submissions, 34%

Upcoming Conference

ITiCSE '25

Sponsor:
sigcse

Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education

June 27 - July 2, 2025

Nijmegen , Netherlands

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

25
Total Citations
View Citations
579
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)70
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)4

Reflects downloads up to 16 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Maiorana FCsizmadia ACristaldii GRiedesel C(2024)Education With PassionNavigating Computer Science Education in the 21st Century10.4018/979-8-3693-1066-3.ch007(129-148)Online publication date: 8-Mar-2024
https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-1066-3.ch007
Childs KWaite J(2024)Funds of identity and culturally responsive computing: K-5 teachers' adaptations to computing resourcesProceedings of the 19th WiPSCE Conference on Primary and Secondary Computing Education Research10.1145/3677619.3678106(1-10)Online publication date: 16-Sep-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3677619.3678106
Sentance SWhyte RKirby D(2024)Exploring Transformative Professional Development Within K-12 Computing EducationInformatics in Schools. Innovative Approaches to Computer Science Teaching and Learning10.1007/978-3-031-73474-8_11(139-151)Online publication date: 27-Oct-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-031-73474-8_11
Faherty RNolan KQuille KBecker BOldham E(2023)Brief History of K-12 Computer Science Education in IrelandInternational Journal of Computer Science Education in Schools10.21585/ijcses.v6i1.1486:1(3-34)Online publication date: 1-Mar-2023
https://doi.org/10.21585/ijcses.v6i1.148
Waite JKolaiti EThomas MMaton K(2023)Constructing feedback for computer science MCQ wrong answers using semantic profiling (Discussion Paper)Proceedings of the 23rd Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research10.1145/3631802.3631803(1-9)Online publication date: 13-Nov-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3631802.3631803
Tshukudu ESentance SAdelakun-Adeyemo ONyaringita BQuille KZhong Z(2023)Investigating K-12 Computing Education in Four African Countries (Botswana, Kenya, Nigeria, and Uganda)ACM Transactions on Computing Education10.1145/355492423:1(1-29)Online publication date: 24-Jan-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3554924
Stringer LLee KSturm SGiacaman N(2023)A scoping review of research exploring teachers’ experiences with Digital Technologies curriculaJournal of Research on Technology in Education10.1080/15391523.2023.221178056:6(733-751)Online publication date: 11-May-2023
https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2023.2211780
Becker BBradley SMaguire JBlack MCrick TSaqr MSentance SQuille K(2023)Computing Education Research in the UK & IrelandPast, Present and Future of Computing Education Research10.1007/978-3-031-25336-2_19(421-479)Online publication date: 5-Jan-2023
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25336-2_19
Simon Sheard JLuxton-Reilly ASzabo C(2023)Computing Education Research in AustralasiaPast, Present and Future of Computing Education Research10.1007/978-3-031-25336-2_17(373-394)Online publication date: 5-Jan-2023
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-25336-2_17
Dagienė VJevsikova TStupurienė GJuskevicienė A(2022)Teaching computational thinking in primary schools: Worldwide trends and teachers’ attitudesComputer Science and Information Systems10.2298/CSIS201215033D19:1(1-24)Online publication date: 2022
https://doi.org/10.2298/CSIS201215033D
Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Figures

Tables

Media

View Table of Conten