Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
research-article

Professional Development in Computational Thinking: A Systematic Literature Review

Published: 10 May 2024 Publication History

Abstract

This paper presents a systematic literature review of professional development programs in computational thinking (CT). CT has emerged as an essential set of skills that everyone should develop to participate in a global society. However, there were no pre-service or in-service teacher programs to integrate CT into the K–12 classrooms until very recently. Thus, it is important to identify how educators and researchers address the challenges to prepare the next generation of students and what gaps persist in the current literature. We review existing work in this field from two perspectives: First, we analyze the learning outcomes, assessment methods, pedagogical approaches, and pedagogical tools used in the professional development programs in CT. Second, we examine how these programs assess the teachers’ knowledge and skills as outcomes. We used the technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) framework to characterize existing literature and identify possible gaps in the preparation of pre-service and in-service teachers in CT. Our results suggest that (1) existing evidence is limited to developed countries; (2) many studies are only focusing on teachers understanding the concepts but do not explore how the participants evaluate or create learning activities; (3) no studies look into classroom observations as part of the program, which limits our understanding to how these programs work; and (4) most programs use block-based programming languages as the tool to develop student CT. While block-based programming languages are used for introductory training programs, students are often expected to transfer their learning to more professional programming languages.

References

[1]
M. Román-Gonzalez, J. C. Pérez-González, and C. Jiménez-Fernández. 2015. Test de Pensamiento Computacional: diseño y psicometría general. In Iii congreso internacional sobre aprendizaje, innovación y competitividad (CINAIC 2015), 1–6.
[2]
J. M. Wing. 2006. Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM 49, 3 (2006), 33–35.
[3]
J. Wing. 2017. Computational thinking's influence on research and education for all. Italian Journal of Educational Technology 25 (2017), 7–14.
[4]
Instituto Nacional de Tecnologías Educativas y Formación del profesorado. 2019. Escuela de Pensamiento computacional e Inteligencia Artificial. Retrieved from https://intef.es/tecnologia-educativa/pensamiento-computacional/. Accedido el 16 de diciembre de 2023.
[5]
I. Lee, F. Martin, J. Denner, B. Coulter, W. Allan, J. Erickson, J. Malyn-Smith, and L. Werner. 2011. Computational thinking for youth in practice. ACM Inroads 2 (Mar. 2011), 32–37.
[6]
O. S. Iversen, R. C. Smith, and C. Dindler. 2018. From computational thinking to computational empowerment: A 21st century PD agenda. In Proceedings of the 15th Participatory Design Conference: Full Papers, Vol. 1. 1–11.
[7]
S. I. Swaid. 2015. Bringing computational thinking to STEM education. Procedia Manufacturing 3 (2015), 3657–3662.
[8]
D. Weintrop, E. Beheshti, M. Horn, K. Orton, K. Jona, L. Trouille, and U. Wilensky. 2015. Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology 25, 1 (Oct. 2015), 127–147. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10956-015-9581-5
[9]
D. C. Boulden, A. Rachmatullah, K. M. Oliver, and E. Wiebe. 2021. Measuring in-service teacher self-efficacy for teaching computational thinking: Development and validation of the T-STEM CT. Education and Information Technologies 26, 4 (Mar. 2021), 4663–4689. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10639-021-10487-2
[10]
C. Stephenson, J. Gal-Ezer, B. Haberman, and A. Verno. 2005. The New Educational Imperative: Improving High School Computer Science Education. Final Report of the CSTA Curriculum Improvement Task Force, ACM. Computer Science Teachers Association, New York, NY.
[11]
C. Vieira, A. J. Magana, A. Roy, and M. L. Falk. 2019. Student explanations in the context of computational science and engineering education. Cognition and Instruction 37 (2019), 201–231.
[12]
T. Bell and J. Vahrenhold. 2018. CS unplugged—How is it used, and does it work? In Adventures Between Lower Bounds and Higher Altitudes. H. J. Böckenhauer, D. Komm, and W. Unger (Eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 11011. Springer, Cham. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-98355-4_29
[13]
P. J. Rich, S. L. Mason, and J. O’Leary. 2021. Measuring the effect of continuous professional development on elementary teachers’ self-efficacy to teach coding and computational thinking. Computers & Education 168 (2021), 104196.
[14]
G. Nugent, K. Chen, L.-K. Soh, D. Choi, G. Trainin, and W. Smith. 2022. Developing K-8 computer science teachers’ content knowledge, self-efficacy, and attitudes through evidence-based professional development. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, Vol. 1. 540–546.
[15]
C. Vieira, R. L. Gómez, M. Gómez, M. Canu, and M. Duque. 2023. Implementing unplugged CS and use-modify-create to develop student computational thinking skills. Educational Technology & Society 26 (2023), 155–175.
[16]
H. Yildiz Durak, N. Atman Uslu, S. Canbazoğlu Bilici, and B. Güler. 2022. Examining the predictors of TPACK for integrated STEM: Science teaching self-efficacy, computational thinking, and design thinking. Education and Information Technologies 28 (July 2022), 79277954.
[17]
P. Mishra and M. J. Koehler. 2006. Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record 108, 6 (Apr. 2006), 1017–1054. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684.x
[18]
D. R. Krathwohl. 2002. A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice 41 (2002), 212–218.
[19]
G. Wiggins, G. P. Wiggins, and J. McTighe. 2005. Understanding by Design. ASCD.
[20]
L. S. Shulman. 1986. Those who understand: A conception of teacher knowledge. American Educator 10 (1986), 1.
[21]
P. Mishra and M. J. Koehler. 2008. Introducing technological pedagogical content knowledge. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vol. 1. 16.
[22]
C. L. Fletcher and J. R. Warner. 2021. CAPE: A framework for assessing equity throughout the computer science education ecosystem. Communications of the ACM 64 (2021), 23–25.
[23]
M. Petticrew and H. Roberts. 2008. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide. John Wiley & Sons.
[24]
P. Brereton, B. A. Kitchenham, D. Budgen, M. Turner, and M. Khalil. 2007. Lessons from applying the systematic literature review process within the software engineering domain. Journal of systems and software 80 (2007), 571–583.
[25]
M. J. Page, J. E. McKenzie, P. M. Bossuyt, I. Boutron, T. C. Hoffmann, C. D. Mulrow, L. Shamseer, J. M. Tetzlaff, E. A. Akl, S. E. Brennan, and R. Chou. 2021. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. International Journal of Surgery 88 (2021), 105906.
[26]
L. Arnau-Sabatés and J. Sala Roca. 2020. La revisión de la literatura científica: Pautas, procedimientos y criterios de calidad.
[27]
C. Adrion, C. S. Fischer, J. Wagner, R. Gürkov, U. Mansmann, and M. Strupp. 2016. Efficacy and safety of betahistine treatment in patients with Meniere's disease: Primary results of a long term, multicentre, double blind, randomised, placebo controlled, dose defining trial (BEMED trial). BMJ 352 (2016).
[28]
F. Alegre and J. Moreno. 2020. Computational thinking for STEM teacher leadership training at Louisiana State University. In Proceedings of the 2020 Research on Equity and Sustained Participation in Engineering, Computing, and Technology (RESPECT), Vol. 1. 1–2. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-8509875729&doi=10.1109%2fRESPECT49803.2020.9272455&partnerID=40&md5=ee005c7e3f94c3dd8ba72ab2456bede7
[29]
S. Basu and D. Rutstein. 2020. A principled approach to designing a computational thinking practices assessment for early grades. In Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’20). 912–918. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85081632439&doi=10.1145%2f3328778.3366849&partnerID=40&md5=0ab589054869aee054b7750ac6261eaf
[30]
A. Bell. 2021. Taking up opportunities to learn in a computer science professional development for middle school teachers. In Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ’21), 1338. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85103328869&doi=10.1145%2f3408877.3439567&partnerID=40&md5=f91e558e854be5b55a7120454aab7595
[31]
R. Feldhausen, J. Weese, and N. Bean. 2018. Increasing student self-efficacy in computational thinking via STEM outreach programs. In Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 302–307. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85046091724&doi=10.1145%2f3159450.3159593&partnerID=40&md5=646b01365428dfc0d20bb0b2dc7039cb
[32]
P. Franco, J. Carroll-Miranda, M. Delgado, E. López, and G. Gómez. 2018. Incorporating computational thinking in the classrooms of Puerto Rico: How a MOOC served as an outreach and recruitment tool for computer science education. In Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 296–301. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85046084057&doi=10.1145%2f3159450.3159544&partnerID=40&md5=5308729b627d338f59575104a8809388
[33]
D. D. Garcia, B. Harvey, T. Barnes, D. Armendariz, J. McKinsey, Z. MacHardy, O. Miller, B. Peddycord III, E. Lemon, S. Morris, and J. Paley. 2014. AP CS principles and the beauty and joy of computing curriculum. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’14). J. Dougherty, K. Nagel, A. Decker, and K. Eiselt (Eds.), Association for Computing Machinery; ACM Special Interest Group on Computer Science Education, 746.
[34]
W. Huang and S. Chan. 2021. Frame shifting as a challenge to integrating computational thinking in secondary mathematics education. In Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’21). 390–396. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85103326788&partnerID=40&md5=9e361b1e478cfaec6c667aaeba7036b2
[35]
R. Jocius and D. Joshi. 2020. Code, connect, create: The 3c professional development model to support computational thinking infusion. In Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’20). 971–977. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85081610818&doi=10.1145%2f3328778.3366797&partnerID=40&md5=d716fd6837092fb94ef27105ade06f24
[36]
Y. Kafai and J. Baskin. 2020. Looking ahead professional development needs for experienced CS teachers. In Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’20). 1118–1119. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85081534309&doi=10.1145%2f3328778.3366977&partnerID=40&md5=528d59f57c6d8e8b45d85453d6834d7d
[37]
H. Killen and M. Coenraad. 2020. We’ll be scratching all the time understanding the role of language in computational thinking education for elementary teachers. In Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’20). 1281. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85081543113&doi=10.1145%2f3328778.3372667&partnerID=40&md5=996740d2d238465cbf83b77ab2ae0686
[38]
M. McGill and A. Reinking. 2022. Developing evidence-based teacher practice briefs with middle school computer science teachers. In Proceedings of the 53rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’22), Vol. 1. 516–522. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85126095409&doi=10.1145%2f3478431.3499288&partnerID=40&md5=0a91c1d38ab57107adc8baeab616111a
[39]
E. Mindell, K. Brennan, G. Britton, J. Kay, and J. Rosato. 2014. CS professional development MOOCs. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 369–370. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84899744417&doi=10.1145%2f2538862.2538872&partnerID=40&md5=0ea652c01708459321b21c5cecad8c18
[40]
L. Musaeus and P. Musaeus. 2019. Computational thinking in the Danish high school: Learning coding, modeling, and content knowledge with Netlogo. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 913–918. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85064396693&doi=10.1145%2f3287324.3287452&partnerID=40&md5=4db773c06eccb2817ec4c2e297c78d31
[41]
Y. Ouyang, K. Hayden, and J. Remold. 2018. Introducing computational thinking through non-programming science activities. In Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 308–313. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85046098912&doi=10.1145%2f3159450.3159520&partnerID=40&md5=492d80997fc130402ba656cd175d3dac
[42]
L. Pollock, C. Mouza, A. Czik, A. Little, D. Coffey, and J. Buttram. J. 2017. From professional development to the classroom: Findings from CS K-12 teachers. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 477–482. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85018289603&doi=10.1145%2f3017680.3017739&partnerID=40&md5=9027e54c16a75699c0295fb89131a8c6
[43]
L. Pollock, C. Mouza, K. Guidry, and K. Pusecker. 2019. Infusing computational thinking across disciplines: Reflections & lessons learned. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 435–441. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85064396601&doi=10.1145%2f3287324.3287469&partnerID=40&md5=7e3f530e21d5d9bb51ce421016e05c37
[44]
S. Razak, H. Gedawy, W. Dann, and D. Slater. 2016. Alice in the middle east: An experience report from the formative phase. In Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education. 425–430. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84968611284&doi=10.1145%2f2839509.2844593&partnerID=40&md5=40663117377e43a78c59daae288ecdbe
[45]
H. Sherwood and W. Yan. 2021. Diverse approaches to school-wide computational thinking integration at the elementary grades: A cross-case analysis. In Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’21). 253–259. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85103314403&partnerID=40&md5=26772a78b434614dd224b1ae4a2fd3a6
[46]
A. Yadav, C. Connolly, M. Berges, C. Chytas, C. Franklin, R. Hijón-Neira, A. Leftwich, L. Marguliex, V. Macann, and J. R. Warner. 2022. Models for computer science teacher preparation: Developing teacher knowledge. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM Conference on on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, Vol. 2. 568–569.
[47]
A. Yadav, E. N. Caeli, C. Ocak, and V. Macann. 2022. Teacher education and computational thinking: Measuring pre-service teacher conceptions and attitudes. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM Conference on on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, Vol. 1. 547–553.
[48]
S. K. Moudgalya, A. Yadav, P. Sands, S. Vogel, and M. Zamansky. 2021. Teacher views on computational thinking as a pathway to computer science. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, Vol. 1. 262–268.
[49]
T. Lehtimäki, J. Hamm, A. Mooney, K. Casey, R. Monahan, and T. J. Naughton. 2022. A computational thinking module for secondary students and pre-service teachers using Bebras-style tasks. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on United Kingdom & Ireland Computing Education Research. 1–1.
[50]
A. Lamprou and A. Repenning. 2018. Teaching how to teach computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. 69–74.
[51]
A. Yadav, M. Israel, E. Bouck, A. Cobo, and J. Samuels. 2022. Achieving CSforAll: Preparing special education pre-service teachers to bring computing to students with disabilities. In Proceedings of the 53rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Vol. 1. 196–201.
[52]
S. Al Sabbagh, H. Gedawy, H. Alshikhabobakr, and S. Razak. 2017. Computing curriculum in middle schools—An experience report. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. 230–235. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85029541952&doi=10.1145%2f3059009.3059012&partnerID=40&md5=5e16c79dbc312fc1d0c8dfffeceecb11
[53]
N. Bean, J. Weese, R. Feldhausen, and R. Bell. 2015. Starting from scratch: Developing a pre-service teacher training program in computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), Vol. 2014. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84960372470&doi=10.1109%2fFIE.2015.7344237&partnerID=40&md5=d48f4b3dca14a29be155bd47ccd36def
[54]
B. Choate, M. Dubosarsky, and K. Chen. 2018. An innovative professional development model for teaching robotics to novice educators. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). 1–5.
[55]
Y. Dong, V. Cateté, N. Lytle, A. Isvik, T. Barnes, R. Jocius, J. Albert, D. Joshi, R. Robinson, and A. Andrews. 2019. Infusing computing: Analyzing teacher programming products in K-12 computational thinking professional development. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. 278–284. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85070868262&doi=10.1145%2f3304221.3319772&partnerID=40&md5=a942feb4e8a82d72dd7fd9df3e0580a0
[56]
A. Espinal and C. Vieira. 2021. Professional development in computational thinking for teachers in Colombia. In Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). 1–4. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85123845408&doi=10.1109%2fFIE49875.2021.9637310&partnerID=40&md5=ae98932c67676254febfd39d91fa29b5
[57]
S. Feng and D. Yang. 2021. Teachers’ perspective on implementing computational thinking in elementary classrooms. In Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). 1–5. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85123846352&doi=10.1109%2fFIE49875.2021.9637221&partnerID=40&md5=8d8538fcfffd68dd2fa6e19ea0a067cb
[58]
C. Li, H. Said, R. Michael, M. Johnson, and H. Meyer. 2016. Competency based IT experienes. In Proceedings of the IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). 1–4. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85006784410&doi=10.1109%2fFIE.2016.7757572&partnerID=40&md5=309b7d584ce467b4170c7aa79f22f386
[59]
S. Mury and L. Negrini. 2022. How to support teachers to carry out educational robotics activities in school? The case of Roteco, the Swiss robotic teacher community. In Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education, Vol. 7 608. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85137988978&doi=10.3389%2ffeduc.2022.968675&partnerID=40&md5=0930c785bc6f5a7272b192b46456d22e
[60]
S. Oyelere and I. Sanusi. 2022. Developing a pedagogical evaluation framework for computational thinking supporting technologies and tools. In Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education, Vol. 7, 957739. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85137036945&doi=10.3389%2ffeduc.2022.957739&partnerID=40&md5=cff5fd4bd938403205590d2432e95056
[61]
E. Prieto-Rodriguez and R. Berretta. 2015. Digital technology teachers’ perceptions of computer science: It is not all about programming. In Proceedings of the IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). 1–5. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84938124993&doi=10.1109%2fFIE.2014.7044134&partnerID=40&md5=9b8c2706628dd79c162a4de3aa61927e
[62]
Y. Reimer, M. Coe, L. Blank, and J. Braun. 2019. Effects of professional development on programming knowledge and self-efficacy. In Proceedings of the IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). 1–8. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85063503878&doi=10.1109%2fFIE.2018.8659041&partnerID=40&md5=5b41f53125f06234ad32dfe500b240e7
[63]
A. Saxena and M. Chiu. 2022. Developing preschool teachers’ computational thinking knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and teaching self-efficacies: A curriculum-based professional development program. In Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education, Vol. 7. 889116. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85132720150&doi=10.3389%2ffeduc.2022.889116&partnerID=40&md5=3ce713a753607b6d34b9b6885981e452
[64]
C. Vieira and A. Magana. 2013. Colombian elementary students’ performance and perceptions of computing learning activities with scratch. In Proceedings of the 2013 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition. 23–301. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84884322098&partnerID=40&md5=9b62c1b6d69275cfa23e00ffa9e35916
[65]
S. Brophy and T. Lowe. 2017. A learning trajectory for developing computational thinking and programming. In Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition. 1–10. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85030531483&partnerID=40&md5=744af05462184aa6377a14b400560975
[66]
C. Diordieva, I. Yeter, and W. Smith. 2019. Middle school stem teachers’ understandings of computational thinking: A case study of Brazil and the USA. In Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition. 1–11. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85078758413&partnerID=40&md5=b8395631853786e72b726b9c50763a30
[67]
E. Ingram and J. Keshwani. 2020. Garden TOOLS: Technology-rich agricultural engineering opportunities in outdoor learning spaces. In Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition. 1–16. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85095730252&partnerID=40&md5=e5fbc8b844cdc358a22014d2f0db04ac
[68]
E. Kaya, M. Yesilyurt, A. Newley, and H. Deniz. 2018. Investigating computational thinking self-efficacy beliefs of pre-service elementary teachers. In Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition. 1–2. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85051185344&partnerID=40&md5=592a84bc5cd4bf05ab52f0d50d551172
[69]
A. J. Perez, I. L. Hurtado, J. Crichigno, R. R. Peralta, and D. Torres. 2014. Enhancing computational thinking skills for New Mexico schools. In Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition.
[70]
G. Ragusa and C. Juarez. 2017. A seven-year study of middle and high school teachers participating in research experiences for teachers programs: Exploring the relationship between teacher performance and student achievement. In Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85030568446&partnerID=40&md5=afa2c9cb16bd8ead6e2ce6fb087adc08
[71]
C. Vieira and A. Magana. 2013. Using backwards design process for the design and implementation of computer science (CS) principles: A case study of a Colombian elementary and secondary teacher development program. In Proceedings of the IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). 879–885. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84893218031&doi=10.1109%2fFIE.2013.6684950&partnerID=40&md5=cb466b9b7cf87427f8973b425ed841d6
[72]
S. I. Ringleb, J. Kidd, P. Pazos, K. Gutierrez, O. Ayala, and K. Kaipa. 2020. The first year of an undergraduate service learning partnership to enhance engineering education and elementary pre-service teacher education. In Proceedings of the ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access.
[73]
D. Hickmott and E. Prieto-Rodriguez. 2018. To assess or not to assess: Tensions negotiated in six years of teaching teachers about computational thinking. Informatics in Education 17 (2018), 229–244. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85058196012&doi=10.15388%2finfedu.2018.12&partnerID=40&md5=0bd1703ceb0da161e500f03708d6d1dd
[74]
G. Fessakis and S. Prantsoudi. 2019. Computer science teachers’ perceptions, beliefs and attitudes on computational thinking in Greece. Informatics in Education 18 (2019), 227–258. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85077464858&doi=10.15388%2finfedu.2019.11&partnerID=40&md5=cd773dadf63c7c882f403abb3ca8f4c1
[75]
V. Lonati. 2020. Getting inspired by Bebras tasks. How Italian teachers elaborate on computing topics. Informatics in Education 19 (2020), 669–699. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85099216612&doi=10.15388%2fINFEDU.2020.29&partnerID=40&md5=b1b36afcfef015d22809d7bd10c1a6c6
[76]
L. Gabriele, F. Bertacchini, A. Tavernise, L. Vaca-Cárdenas, P. Pantano, and E. Bilotta. 2019. Lesson planning by computational thinking skills in Italian pre-service teachers. Informatics in Education 18 (2019), 69–104. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85065580143&doi=10.15388%2finfedu.2019.04&partnerID=40&md5=5248448b62faa0d131853ecef2102e17
[77]
G. Fessakis and S. Prantsoudi. 2019. Computer science teachers’ perceptions, beliefs and attitudes on computational thinking in Greece. Informatics in Education 18 (2019), 227–258.
[78]
D. Hickmott. 2017. Developing teachers as computational participants. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research. 265–266. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85030153491&doi=10.1145%2f3105726.3105728&partnerID=40&md5=5290691f0bb23007787ee735279b1803
[79]
W. Pewkam and S. Chamrat. 2022. Pre-service teacher training program of STEM-based activities in computing science to develop computational thinking. Informatics in Education 21 (2022), 311–329.
[80]
C. Avci̇ and M. N. Deniz. 2022. Computational thinking: Early childhood teachers’ and prospective teachers’ preconceptions and self-efficacy. Education and Information Technologies 27 (2022), 11689–11713. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85130504144&doi=10.1007%2fs10639-022-11078-5&partnerID=40&md5=83094e3f3e9dcd8679928722a4ea1675
[81]
F. Lazarinis, C. Karachristos, E. Stavropoulos, and V. Verykios. 2019. A blended learning course for playfully teaching programming concepts to school teachers. Education and Information Technologies 24 (2019), 1237–1249. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85055274357&doi=10.1007%2fs10639-018-9823-2&partnerID=40&md5=a7d673143436acb66e13c418fcbe6cdf
[82]
N. Monjelat. 2019. Programming technologies for social inclusion with scratch: Computational practices in a teacher's professional development course. Revista Electronica Educare 23, 3 (2019), 182–206. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85072306702&doi=10.15359%2free.23-3.9&partnerID=40&md5=b166fccb831761ae3ecf620b1d78b201
[83]
K. Rich, A. Yadav, and R. Larimore. 2020. Teacher implementation profiles for integrating computational thinking into elementary mathematics and science instruction. Education and Information Technologies 25 (2020), 3161–3188. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85078426155&doi=10.1007%2fs10639-020-10115-5&partnerID=40&md5=2c9f2248c5185a8ff9c592943d5828b7
[84]
S. Sentance and A. Csizmadia. 2017. Computing in the curriculum: Challenges and strategies from a teacher's perspective. Education and Information Technologies 22 (2017), 469–495. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84962726745&doi=10.1007%2fs10639-016-9482-0&partnerID=40&md5=82f57257b5e535759bcd3b774025ba38
[85]
H. Yildiz Durak and N. Atman Uslu. 2022. Examining the predictors of TPACK for integrated STEM: Science teaching self-efficacy, computational thinking, and design thinking. Education and Information Technologies 28, 7 (2022), 7927–7954. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85143892319&doi=10.1007%2fs10639-022-11505-7&partnerID=40&md5=fd78da786424176d81bc1f42064c608a
[86]
Y.-H. Chang and L. Peterson. 2018. “It opens up a new way of thinking, but…”: Implications from pre-service teachers’ introduction to computational thinking. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Thinking Education. 153–156. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85103819414&partnerID=40&md5=4d87927f135a3b60ca26d13551d174f0
[87]
J. Malyn-Smith and I. Lee. 2018. Developing a framework for computational thinking from a disciplinary perspective. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Thinking Education. 182–186. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85075388579&partnerID=40&md5=0a33051de0859483d48cf6631b1e9b4a
[88]
S.-C. Kong and M. Lai. 2017. The design and evaluation of a teacher development programme in computational thinking education. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Thinking Education. 77–80. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85070347708&partnerID=40&md5=17e6fdf4ffd2fea3514d29a3890f32cd
[89]
G. Robles and J. Hauck. 2018. On tools that support the development of computational thinking skills: Some thoughts and future vision. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computational Thinking Education. 129–132. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85066924883&partnerID=40&md5=5ebf4a937d7e1270a8b623df7d15fc47
[90]
L. Wu, C. K. Looi, J. Multisilta, M. L. How, H. Choi, T. C. Hsu, and P. Tuomi. 2020. Teacher's perceptions and readiness to teach coding skills: A comparative study between Finland, Mainland China, Singapore, Taiwan, and South Korea. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher 29 (2020), 21–34. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85074064375&doi=10.1007%2fs40299-019-00485-x&partnerID=40&md5=b13d675d571a221cf9da4f7796b5ac70
[91]
S. Seegerer and R. Romeike. 2019. Employing computational thinking in general teacher education. CoolThink@ JC (2019), 86.
[92]
S. Basu and D. Rutstein. 2021. A principled approach to designing computational thinking concepts and practices assessments for upper elementary grades. Computer Science Education 31 (2021), 169–198. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85099401009&doi=10.1080%2f08993408.2020.1866939&partnerID=40&md5=6fd3ff19521a63a474f8b041440db187
[93]
M. Menekse. 2015. Computer science teacher professional development in the United States: A review of studies published between 2004 and 2014. Computer Science Education 25 (2015), 325–350.
[94]
K. Searle and C. Tofel-Grehl, L. Fischback, and T. Hansen 2022. Affordances and limitations of teachers instructional styles when teaching computer science and computational thinking. Computer Science Education 33, 1 (2022), 139–161. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85145177803&doi=10.1080%2f08993408.2022.2154992&partnerID=40&md5=8904acab8c001362a5434b6719f627d2
[95]
A. Yadav, C. Krist, J. Good, and E. Caeli. 2018. Computational thinking in elementary classrooms: Measuring teacher understanding of computational ideas for teaching science. Computer Science Education 28 (2018), 371–400. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85059008340&doi=10.1080%2f08993408.2018.1560550&partnerID=40&md5=8d8962bbf164ca6000980c23135ff6a9
[96]
J. Bernier and F. Figueroa. 2022. Accessible computational thinking in elementary science. In Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS). 2024–2025. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85145772709&partnerID=40&md5=6102a55d6813eb6975cc3a835a09065c
[97]
C. De Oliveira Lozada. 2022. Using design-based research in a computational thinking and programming course with pedagogy students. In Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS). 1409–1412. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85145782914&partnerID=40&md5=592c1ca50ec5ba9f3a4e5b10573b3de7
[98]
J. Kim and J. Koressel. 2022. How to teach computer science/computational thinking: Collaborative online CS/CT professional development. In Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS). 545–546. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85145551214&partnerID=40&md5=09ebd144cec804a9bec6fb08e41311ff
[99]
M. W. Walton, A. Elby, J. S. Fofang, and D. Weintrop. 2022. Teachers’ conceptualizations of computational and mathematical thinking. In Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences.
[100]
M. Ausiku and M. Matthee. 2021. Preparing primary school teachers for teaching computational thinking: A systematic review. In Proceedings of the Learning Technologies and Systems: 19th International Conference on Web-Based Learning, ICWL 2020, and 5th International Symposium on Emerging Technologies for Education (SETE). Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), Vol. 12511. 202–213. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85101564170&doi=10.1007%2f978-3-030-66906-5_19&partnerID=40&md5=5be2e3220b13769adc05ce4bbd54fc0a
[101]
C. Bellettini, V. Lonati, D. Malchiodi, M. Monga, and A. Morpurgo. 2018. Informatics and computational thinking: A teacher professional development proposal based on social-constructivism. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Informatics in Schools: Situation, Evolution and Perspectives (ISSEP). Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), Vol. 11169. 194–205. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85059661037&doi=10.1007%2f978-3-030-02750-6_15&partnerID=40&md5=f3cb97358474f31da482c17e561c7ba1
[102]
I. Corradini, M. Lodi, and E. Nardelli. 2018. An investigation of Italian primary school teachers’ view on coding and programming. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Informatics in Schools: Situation, Evolution and Perspectives (ISSEP). Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), Vol. 11169. 228–243. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85059663878&doi=10.1007%2f978-3-030-02750-6_18&partnerID=40&md5=30e259d12b437cd8af0b9f43c770fa11
[103]
L. Cirus and I. Simonova. 2022. Towards the teaching of computational thinking: A new curriculum in the Czech Republic. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Blended Learning. 277–287.
[104]
E. Kang, C. Donovan, and M. McCarthy. 2018. Exploring elementary teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge and confidence in implementing the NGSS science and engineering practices. Journal of Science Teacher Education 29 (2018), 9–29. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85045280841&doi=10.1080%2f1046560X.2017.1415616&partnerID=40&md5=fb45b3cc54c8653d4a3a298c9947f2f2
[105]
V. Kite and S. Park. 2022. What's computational thinking?: Secondary science teachers’ conceptualizations of computational thinking (CT) and perceived barriers to CT integration. Journal of Science Teacher Education 1 (2022), 1–6. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85139103712&doi=10.1080%2f1046560X.2022.2110068&partnerID=40&md5=be83ee6620a6d538b2eddc206584cae2
[106]
E. Peters-Burton and P. Rich. 2022. High school biology teachers’ integration of computational thinking into data practices to support student investigations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 60 (June 2022), 1353–1384. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85142061361&doi=10.1002%2ftea.21834&partnerID=40&md5=d9154da5965efa163f890043d5d7d807
[107]
S.-C. Kong and M. Lai. 2020. Teacher development in computational thinking: Design and learning outcomes of programming concepts, practices and pedagogy. Computers and Education 151 (2020), 103872. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85081701168&doi=10.1016%2fj.compedu.2020.103872&partnerID=40&md5=6e2a2f3feba92b43ad0f203ead67ed52
[108]
P. Rich and S. Mason. 2021. Measuring the effect of continuous professional development on elementary teachers’ self-efficacy to teach coding and computational thinking. Computers and Education 168 (2021), 104196. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85103696529&doi=10.1016%2fj.compedu.2021.104196&partnerID=40&md5=ca7932d1fb2025351ab864972933d919
[109]
X. Tang, Y. Yin, Q. Lin, R. Hadad, and X. Zhai. 2020. Assessing computational thinking: A systematic review of empirical studies. Computers and Education 148 (2020), 103798. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85077722056&doi=10.1016%2fj.compedu.2019.103798&partnerID=40&md5=31fa0452b432cfea6a35dd575879ffb1
[110]
T. Dragon. 2019. Support of teacher's work in the field of development of computational thinking through e-learning resources In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Education and Multimedia Technology (ACM International Conference Proceeding Series). 131–135. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85074770414&doi=10.1145%2f3345120.3352738&partnerID=40&md5=0d43d23a0728435347b342029c7a7264
[111]
C. Duncan, T. Bell, and J. Atlas. 2017. What do the teachers think? Introducing computational thinking in the primary school curriculum. In Proceedings of the 19th Australasian Computing Education Conference. 65–74. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85014967769&doi=10.1145%2f3013499.3013506&partnerID=40&md5=470b6d6bdd50c0fdaaa87b18a6e7f941
[112]
M. Friend and M. McGill. 2022. Solve this! K-12 CS education teachers’ problems of practice. In Proceedings of the 22nd Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research (ACM International Conference Proceeding Series). 1–13. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-&doi=10.1145%2f3564721.3564738&partnerID=40&md5=83ccd4a002840d48ba3a0fef4d6fd8d5
[113]
J. R. Byrne, L. Fisher, and B. Tangney. 2016. A 21st century teaching and learning approach to computer science education: Teacher reactions. In Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2015). S. Zvacek, M. Restivo, J. Uhomoibh, and M. Helfert (Eds.), Communications in Computer and Information Science, Vol. 583, Springer, Cham, 523–540.
[114]
M. Cutumisu and Q. Guo. 2019. Using topic modeling to extract pre-service teachers’ understandings of computational thinking from their coding reflections. IEEE Transactions on Education 62 (Nov. 2019), 325–332.
[115]
S. Zha, Y. Jin, P. Moore, and J. Gaston. 2020. Hopscotch into coding: Introducing pre-service teachers computational thinking. TechTrends 64 (Jan. 2020), 17–28.
[116]
I. Corradini, M. Lodi, and E. Nardelli. 2018. An investigation of Italian primary school teachers’ view on coding and programming. In Proceedings of the Informatics in Schools: Fundamentals of Computer Science and Software Engineering (ISSEP). S. N. Pozdniakov and V. Dagiene (Eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 11169, Springer, Cham, 228–243.
[117]
S. Zha, Y. Jin, P. Moore, and J. Gaston. 2020. A cross-institutional investigation of a flipped module on preservice teachers’ interest in teaching computational thinking. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education 36 (2020), 32–45. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85079701364&doi=10.1080%2f21532974.2019.1693941&partnerID=40&md5=8ee7ba8f661121f78058dc1171524736
[118]
A. Lamprou and A. Repenning. 2018. Teaching how to teach computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE). Association for Computing Machinery, 69–74.
[119]
M. T. Chi. 2009. Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science 1 (2009), 73–105.
[120]
R. Jocius, W. I. O’Byrne, J. Albert, D. Joshi, M. Blanton, R. Robinson, A. Andrews, T. Barnes, and V. Catete. 2022. Building a virtual community of practice: Teacher learning for computational thinking infusion. TechTrends 66 (May 2022), 547–559.
[121]
M. Ben-Ari. 2004. Situated learning in computer science education. Computer Science Education 14 (2004), 85–100.
[122]
K. Brennan, A. Valverde, J. Prempeh, R. Roque, and M. Chung. 2011. More than code: The significance of social interactions in young people's development as interactive media creators. In Proceedings of the EdMedia + Innovate Learning. 2147–2156.
[123]
J. Goode, J. Margolis, and G. Chapman. 2014. Curriculum is not enough: The educational theory and research foundation of the exploring computer science professional development model. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 493–498.
[124]
A. Espinal, C. Vieira, and V. Guerrero-Bequis. 2022. Student ability and difficulties with transfer from a block-based programming language into other programming languages: A case study in Colombia. Computer Science Education 33, 4 (2022), 1–33.
[125]
M. Webb. 2020. Digital politics in the diaspora: UK Aam Aadmi party supporters online and offline. Television & New Media 21 (2020), 420–433.
[126]
M. Bower, L. Wood, J. Lai, C. Howe, and R. Lister. 2017. Improving the computational thinking pedagogical capabilities of school teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education 42 (2017), 53–72. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85017469413&doi=10.14221%2fajte.2017v42n3.4&partnerID=40&md5=618ba35fcec2f754e29b3483db8a0e87
[127]
C. Mouza, H. Yang, Y.-C. Pan, S. Yilmaz Ozden, and L. Pollock. 2017. Resetting educational technology coursework for pre-service teachers: A computational thinking approach to the development of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 33 (2017), 61–76. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85025698446&doi=10.14742%2fajet.3521&partnerID=40&md5=594d60e5f0a9764d8bbcaf2923bc94c2
[128]
W. Anderson, R. David, and D. Krathwohl. 2001. Una taxonomía para el aprendizaje, enseñanza y evaluación: una revisión de la taxonomía de Bloom de objetivos educativos. Longman, Nueva York. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/42926529
[129]
N. Monjelat, M. D. J. Bruno, M. A. Pidello, and R. P. Salvador. 2021. Formación docente en Ciencias de la Computación: hacia una transversalidad situada en comunidad. Ciencia, docencia y tecnología 63 (2021), 49–51.
[130]
S. Jatzlau, R. Romeike, E. Jasut, and V. Dagien. 2018. How high is the ceiling? Applying core concepts of block-based languages to extend programming environments. Constructionism (2018), 286–294.
[131]
D. Weintrop, E. Beheshti, M. Horn, K. Orton, K. Jona, L. Trouille, and U. Wilensky. 2016. Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology 25 (2016), 127–147.
[132]
P. Sengupta, A. Dickes, A. V. Farris, A. Karan, D. Martin, and M. Wright. 2015. Programming in K-12 science classrooms. Communications of the ACM 58 (2015), 33–35.
[133]
K. Falkner, R. Vivian, and N. Falkner. 2018. Supporting computational thinking development in K-6. In Proceedings of the 2018 6th International Conference on Learning and Teaching in Computing and Engineering (LaTiCE). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., 126–133.
[134]
M. Aydeniz. 2018. Integrating computational thinking in school curriculum. In Computational Thinking in the STEM Disciplines: Foundations and Research Highlights. M. Khine (Ed.), Springer, Cham, 253–277. Retrieved from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85063498542&doi=10.1007%2f978-3-319-93566-9_13&partnerID=40&md5=c978a9d98fe4201e246305b26a7ed4e4
[135]
M. M. McGill, E. Snow, and A. Camping. 2022. A theory of impacts model for assessing computer science interventions through an equity lens: Identifying systemic impacts using the CAPE framework. Education Sciences 12 (2022), 578.
[136]
T. R. Guskey. 2002. Does it make a difference? Evaluating professional development. Educational Leadership 59, 6 (2002), 45–51. Retrieved from https://uknowledge.uky.edu/edp_facpub
[137]
V. Barr and C. Stephenson. 2011. Bringing computational thinking to K-12: What is involved and what is the role of the computer science education community? ACM Inroads 2 (2011), 48–54.
[138]
A. Yadav, S. Gretter, J. Good, and T. McLean. 2017. Computational thinking in teacher education. In Emerging Research, Practice, and Policy on Computational Thinking. P. J. Rich and C. B. Hodges (Eds.), Educational Communications and Technology: Issues and Innovations, Springer, Cham, 205–220.
[139]
C. J. Finelli and J. E. Froyd. 2019. Improving student learning in undergraduate engineering education by improving teaching and assessment. In Proceedings of the Advances in Engineering Education.
[140]
Grupos Étnicos. Retrieved from https://www.minsalud.gov.co/proteccionsocial/promocion-social/Paginas/grupos-etnicos.aspx. Accedido el 27 de diciembre de 2023.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Pre-service teachers’ competencies to develop computational thinking: A Portuguese tool to analyse Computational ThinkingEurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education10.29333/ejmste/1552320:11(em2528)Online publication date: 2024
  • (2024)Effective Instructional Strategies for the Development of Computational Thinking in Primary Education: A Systematic Literature ReviewResearch on Education and Media10.2478/rem-2024-001816:2Online publication date: 21-Dec-2024

Index Terms

  1. Professional Development in Computational Thinking: A Systematic Literature Review

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Transactions on Computing Education
    ACM Transactions on Computing Education  Volume 24, Issue 2
    June 2024
    327 pages
    EISSN:1946-6226
    DOI:10.1145/3613624
    • Editor:
    • Amy J. Ko
    Issue’s Table of Contents

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 10 May 2024
    Online AM: 05 March 2024
    Accepted: 01 February 2024
    Revised: 22 January 2024
    Received: 26 September 2022
    Published in TOCE Volume 24, Issue 2

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. Computational thinking
    2. professional development
    3. literature review

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)684
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)71
    Reflects downloads up to 05 Jan 2025

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)Pre-service teachers’ competencies to develop computational thinking: A Portuguese tool to analyse Computational ThinkingEurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education10.29333/ejmste/1552320:11(em2528)Online publication date: 2024
    • (2024)Effective Instructional Strategies for the Development of Computational Thinking in Primary Education: A Systematic Literature ReviewResearch on Education and Media10.2478/rem-2024-001816:2Online publication date: 21-Dec-2024

    View Options

    Login options

    Full Access

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Full Text

    View this article in Full Text.

    Full Text

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media