[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ skip to main content
10.1145/3511861.3511883acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagesaus-ceConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Open access

A case for co-construction with teachers in curricular reform: Introducing computer science in primary school

Published: 14 February 2022 Publication History

Abstract

With the introduction of Computer Science (CS) into curricula worldwide, researchers have investigated whether CS could be introduced transversally, as a support other disciplines. Few however consider both student learning and the teachers’ perspective in their assessments. In a co-constructive approach to translational research, we collaborated with teachers, in two case studies involving two classes each, to investigate how CS content could be used transversally. More specifically, teacher inputs and student learning data were combined in a mixed methods analysis to determine whether two CS Unplugged (CSU) activities from the curriculum could be leveraged to teach disciplinary content in primary school. The findings indicated that the CSU activities could be leveraged for maths and spelling, but require validation at a larger scale. More important, though, are the takeaways of the co-constructive experience with teachers. Interestingly the benefits of co-construction went both ways. While researchers gained a deeper understanding of the effectiveness of the activities, teachers i) appreciated having detailed student learning analyses, devoid of biases and impressions, ii) changed their perspective about researchers, and iii) were open to other collaborative research initiatives which they found to be drivers of change and innovation in their practice. The way co-construction was approached also impacted the teachers’ perception of their experience. Indeed, while one study was researcher-driven and included teachers, the other was teacher-driven and included researchers. When teacher-driven, the teachers felt they had a more active role, thus reflecting more on the study design, results and implications. Provided the positive impact that co-construction may have on innovation in teacher practices, different co-construction modalities must be investigated, as well as their implications on all stakeholders, including researchers.

References

[1]
Valerie Barr and Chris 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, 1 (2011), 48–54.
[2]
Tim Bell, Jason Alexander, Isaac Freeman, and Mick Grimley. 2009. Computer science unplugged: school students doing real computing without computers. New Zealand Journal of Applied Computing and Information Technology 13, 1(2009), 20–29.
[3]
Tim Bell and Jan Vahrenhold. 2018. CS Unplugged—How Is It Used, and Does It Work?In Adventures Between Lower Bounds and Higher Altitudes. Springer, Cham, 497–521.
[4]
Jérôme Brender, Laila El-Hamamsy, Barbara Bruno, Frédérique Chessel-Lazzarotto, Jessica Dehler Zufferey, and Francesco Mondada. 2021. Investigating the Role of Educational Robotics in Formal Mathematics Education: The Case of Geometry for 15-Year-Old Students. In Technology-Enhanced Learning for a Free, Safe, and Sustainable World(Lecture Notes in Computer Science). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 67–81.
[5]
Tereza Cahlikova. 2020. The implementation of a digital curriculum on the local level: lessons from a Swiss case study. In Proc. 13th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance. ACM, 184–191.
[6]
Tereza Cahlikova and Pirmin Bundi. 2020. Managing the Rise of the Digital State: Implementation of Digital Education by Local Government. Jahrbuch der Schweizerischen Verwaltungswissenschaften 11, 1(2020), 145–157.
[7]
Luis Alberto Calao, J. Moreno-León, Heidy Ester Correa, and Gregorio Robles. 2015. Developing Mathematical Thinking with Scratch. In Design for Teaching and Learning in a Networked World. Springer, Cham, 17–27.
[8]
Veronica Cateté, Amy Isvik, and Tiffany Barnes. 2020. Infusing Computing: A Scaffolding and Teacher Accessibility Analysis of Computing Lessons Designed by Novices. In Proceedings of the 20th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research. ACM, 1–11.
[9]
Morgane Chevalier, Laila El-Hamamsy, Christian Giang, Barbara Bruno, and Francesco Mondada. 2022. Teachers’ Perspective on Fostering Computational Thinking Through Educational Robotics. In Robotics in Education(Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 177–185.
[10]
Morgane Chevalier, Christian Giang, Alberto Piatti, and Francesco Mondada. 2020. Fostering computational thinking through educational robotics: a model for creative computational problem solving. IJ STEM Ed 7, 1 (2020), 39.
[11]
Morgane Chevalier, Fanny Riedo, and Francesco Mondada. 2016. Pedagogical uses of thymio II: How do teachers perceive educational robots in formal education?IEEE Robot Autom Mag 23, 2 (2016), 16–23.
[12]
Merijke Coenraad, Jen Palmer, Donna Eatinger, David Weintrop, and Diana Franklin. 2021. Using participatory design to integrate stakeholder voices in the creation of a culturally relevant computing curriculum. Int. J. Child-Comput. Interact. (July 2021), 100353.
[13]
Valentina Dagiene and Gabriele Stupuriene. 2016. Informatics concepts and computational thinking in K-12 education: A Lithuanian perspective. Journal of Information Processing 24, 4 (2016), 732–739.
[14]
Elizabeth A. Davis, Carrie Beyer, Cory T. Forbes, and Shawn Stevens. 2011. Understanding pedagogical design capacity through teachers’ narratives. Teaching and Teacher Education 27, 4 (2011), 797–810.
[15]
Pierre Dillenbourg, Michael J. Baker, Agnès Blaye, and Claire O’Malley. 1995. The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In Learning in Humans and Machine: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science., Spada, E., Reiman, and P. (Eds.). Elsevier, Oxford, 189–211.
[16]
Laila El-Hamamsy, Barbara Bruno, Frédérique Chessel-Lazzarotto, Morgane Chevalier, Didier Roy, Jessica Dehler Zufferey, and Francesco Mondada. 2021. The symbiotic relationship between educational robotics and computer science in formal education. Educ Inf Technol 26, 5 (Sept. 2021), 5077–5107.
[17]
Laila El-Hamamsy, Frédérique Chessel-Lazzarotto, Barbara Bruno, Didier Roy, Tereza Cahlikova, Morgane Chevalier, Gabriel Parriaux, Jean-Philippe Pellet, Jacques Lanarès, Jessica Dehler Zufferey, and Francesco Mondada. 2021. A computer science and robotics integration model for primary school: evaluation of a large-scale in-service K-4 teacher-training program. Educ Inf Technol 26, 3 (May 2021), 2445–2475.
[18]
Peggy A. Ertmer. 1999. Addressing first- and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educ. Technol. Res. Dev. 47, 4 (1999), 47–61.
[19]
European Union and Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency Education. 2019. Digital education at school in Europe. Publications Office of the European Union, Brussels.
[20]
Robin Jocius, Deepti Joshi, Yihuan Dong, Richard Robinson, Veronica Cateté, Tiffany Barnes, Jennifer Albert, Ashley Andrews, and Nicholas Lytle. 2020. Code, Connect, Create: The 3C Professional Development Model to Support Computational Thinking Infusion. In Proc. 51st ACM Tech. Symp. Comput. Sci. Educ.971–977.
[21]
Sarah-Louise Jones, Richard Procter, and Sarah Younie. 2015. Participatory knowledge mobilisation: an emerging model for international translational research in education. Journal of Education for Teaching 41, 5 (Oct. 2015).
[22]
Herma Jonker, Virginie März, and Joke Voogt. 2019. Collaboration in teacher design teams: Untangling the relationship between experiences of the collaboration process and perceptions of the redesigned curriculum. Stud. Educ. Evaluation 61 (2019), 138–149.
[23]
Jacob Kelter, Amanda Peel, Connor Bain, Gabriella Anton, Sugat Dabholkar, Michael S. Horn, and Uri Wilensky. 2021. Constructionist co-design: A dual approach to curriculum and professional development. Br J Educ Technol (2021).
[24]
William R. King and Jun He. 2006. A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management 43, 6 (2006), 740–755.
[25]
Janika Leoste and Mati Heidmets. 2020. Bringing an Educational Robot into a Basic Education Math Lesson. In Robotics in Education(Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing). Springer, Cham, 237–247.
[26]
Janika Leoste, Mati Heidmets, and Tobias Ley. 2021. What Makes New Technology Sustainable in the Classroom: Two Innovation Models Considered. In Ludic, Co-design and Tools Supporting Smart Learning Ecosystems and Smart Education(Smart Innov. Syst. Technol.). Springer, 53–65.
[27]
Janika Leoste, Kairit Tammets, and Tobias Ley. 2019. Co-Creation of Learning Designs: Analyzing Knowledge Appropriation in Teacher Training Programs. In Companion Proceeding of the 14th European Conference on Technology-enhanced Learning (EC-TEL). 9.
[28]
Janika Leoste, Kairit Tammets, and Tobias Ley. 2020. Co-Creating Learning Designs in Professional Teacher Education: Knowledge Appropriation in the Teacher’s Innovation Laboratory. Interaction Design and Architecture(s) 42 (Jan. 2020), 131–163.
[29]
Mitzi Lewison and Sue Holliday. 1997. Control, Trust, and Rethinking Traditional Roles: Critical Elements in Creating a Mutually Beneficial University-School Partnership. Teacher Education Quarterly 24, 1 (1997), 105–126.
[30]
Tobias Ley, Janika Leoste, Katrin Poom‐Valickis, María Rodríguez-Triana, Denis Gillet, and Terje Väljataga. 2018. Analyzing Co-Creation in Educational Living Labs using the Knowledge Appropriation Model. In Workshop on Co-Creation in the Design, Development and Implementation of Technology-Enhanced Learning (CC-TEL’18).
[31]
Nicholas Lytle, Veronica Cateté, Danielle Boulden, Yihuan Dong, Jennifer Houchins, Alexandra Milliken, Amy Isvik, Dolly Bounajim, Eric Wiebe, and Tiffany Barnes. 2019. Use, Modify, Create: Comparing Computational Thinking Lesson Progressions for STEM Classes. In Proc. Annu. Conf. Innov. Technol. Comput. Sci. Educ. ITiCSE (2019). ACM, 395–401.
[32]
Nicholas Alan Lytle and others. 2020. Strategies for Designing, Scaffolding, and Leading Open-Ended Programming Projects within Core K-12 Classrooms.Ph. D. Dissertation.
[33]
John M Malouff and Einar B Thorsteinsson. 2016. Bias in grading: A meta-analysis of experimental research findings. Aust. J. Educ. 60, 3 (2016), 245–256.
[34]
Linda Mannila, Valentina Dagiene, Barbara Demo, Natasa Grgurina, Claudio Mirolo, Lennart Rolandsson, and Amber Settle. 2014. Computational Thinking in K-9 Education. In Proceedings of the Working Group Reports of the 2014 on Innovation & Technology in Computer Science Education Conference(ITiCSE-WGR ’14). Association for Computing Machinery, Uppsala, Sweden, 1–29.
[35]
Jeffrey D. Marx and Karen Cummings. 2006. Normalized change. American Journal of Physics 75, 1 (2006), 87–91.
[36]
Sharon S.N. Ng and Esther Y.M. Chan. 2012. School—University Partnership: Challenges and Visions in the New Decade. Global Studies of Childhood 2, 1 (2012), 38–56. Publisher: SAGE Publications.
[37]
Amanda Peel, Sugat Dabholkar, Gabriella Anton, Sally Wu, Uri Wilensky, and Michael Horn. 2020. A Case Study of Teacher Professional Growth Through Co-design and Implementation of Computationally Enriched Biology Units. In The Interdisciplinarity of the Learning Sciences, Vol. 4. 1950–1957.
[38]
Amanda Peel, Troy D. Sadler, and Patricia Friedrichsen. 2021. Using Unplugged Computational Thinking to Scaffold Natural Selection Learning. The American Biology Teacher 83, 2 (2021), 112–117.
[39]
Marine Roche. 2019. L’acceptation d’un nouvel enseignement à l’école primaire: les professeurs des écoles face à la programmation informatique. Ph. D. Dissertation. Nantes.
[40]
Margarida Romero, Marie Duflot-Kremer, and Thierry Viéville. 2018. Le jeu du robot : analyse d’une activité d’informatique débranchée sous la perspective de la cognition incarnée. Review of science, mathematics and ICT education (2018). Publisher: Laboratory of Didactics of Sciences, Mathematics and ICT, Department of Educational Sciences and Early Childhood Education - University of Patras.
[41]
Audrey Rorrer, David Pugalee, Callie Edwards, Danielle Boulden, Mary Lou Maher, Lijuan Cao, Mohsen Dorodchi, Veronica Catete, David Frye, Tiffany Barnes, and Eric Wiebe. 2021. The Design and Implementation of a Method for Evaluating and Building Research Practice Partnerships. In Proc. 52nd ACM Tech. Symp. Comput. Sci. Educ.753–759.
[42]
Marina Rottenhofer, Barbara Sabitzer, and Tom Rankin. 2021. Developing Computational Thinking Skills Through Modeling in Language Lessons. Open Education Studies 3(2021), 17–25.
[43]
Sina Shahmoradi, Aditi Kothiyal, Jennifer K. Olsen, Barbara Bruno, and Pierre Dillenbourg. 2020. What Teachers Need for Orchestrating Robotic Classrooms. In Addressing Global Challenges and Quality Education(LNCS). Springer, Cham, 87–101.
[44]
Karl Smith. 2016. Partnerships in teacher education-going beyond the rhetoric, with reference to the Norwegian context. ceps Journal 6, 3 (2016), 17–36.
[45]
The Royal Society. 2017. After the reboot: computing education in UK schools.OCLC: 1079199842.
[46]
A Tricot, F Plégat-Soutjis, J Camps, A Amiel, G Lutz, and A Morcillo. 2003. Utility, usability, acceptability: interpreting the links between three dimensions of the evaluation of the computerized environments for human training (CEHT). Environnements Informatiques pour l’Apprentissage Humain (2003).
[47]
Mary Webb, Niki Davis, Tim Bell, Yaacov J Katz, Nicholas Reynolds, Dianne P Chambers, and Maciej M Sysło. 2017. Computer science in K-12 school curricula of the 2lst century: Why, what and when?Educ Inf Technol 22, 2 (2017), 445–468.
[48]
David Weintrop. 2016. Defining Computational Thinking for Mathematics and Science Classrooms. J Sci Educ Technol (2016), 21.
[49]
S. Wu, A. Peel, C. Bain, G. Anton, M. Horn, and U. Wilensky. 2020. Workshops and Co-design Can Help Teachers Integrate Computational Thinking into Their K-12 STEM Classes. Proc. Int. Conf. on Computational Thinking Education (2020).
[50]
Yuqin Yang, Yanwen Long, Daner Sun, Jan Van Aalst, and Sanyin Cheng. 2020. Fostering students’ creativity via educational robotics: An investigation of teachers’ pedagogical practices based on teacher interviews. Br J Educ Technol 51, 5 (2020), 1826–1842.

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Modelling the sustainability of a primary school digital education curricular reform and professional development programEducation and Information Technologies10.1007/s10639-023-11653-429:3(2857-2904)Online publication date: 1-Feb-2024
  • (2023)How are primary school computer science curricular reforms contributing to equity? Impact on student learning, perception of the discipline, and gender gapsInternational Journal of STEM Education10.1186/s40594-023-00438-310:1Online publication date: 10-Oct-2023
  • (2023)A Research-Practice Partnership to Introduce Computer Science in Secondary School: Lessons from a Pilot ProgramACM Transactions on Computing Education10.1145/358377923:2(1-31)Online publication date: 8-Jun-2023
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. A case for co-construction with teachers in curricular reform: Introducing computer science in primary school
        Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

        Information & Contributors

        Information

        Published In

        cover image ACM Other conferences
        ACE '22: Proceedings of the 24th Australasian Computing Education Conference
        February 2022
        200 pages
        ISBN:9781450396431
        DOI:10.1145/3511861
        This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike International 4.0 License.

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        Published: 14 February 2022

        Check for updates

        Author Tags

        1. Computer science education
        2. co-construction
        3. computer science unplugged
        4. primary school
        5. translational research.
        6. transversal integration

        Qualifiers

        • Research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed limited

        Funding Sources

        Conference

        ACE '22
        ACE '22: Australasian Computing Education Conference
        February 14 - 18, 2022
        Virtual Event, Australia

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate 161 of 359 submissions, 45%

        Contributors

        Other Metrics

        Bibliometrics & Citations

        Bibliometrics

        Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)423
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)20
        Reflects downloads up to 01 Jan 2025

        Other Metrics

        Citations

        Cited By

        View all
        • (2024)Modelling the sustainability of a primary school digital education curricular reform and professional development programEducation and Information Technologies10.1007/s10639-023-11653-429:3(2857-2904)Online publication date: 1-Feb-2024
        • (2023)How are primary school computer science curricular reforms contributing to equity? Impact on student learning, perception of the discipline, and gender gapsInternational Journal of STEM Education10.1186/s40594-023-00438-310:1Online publication date: 10-Oct-2023
        • (2023)A Research-Practice Partnership to Introduce Computer Science in Secondary School: Lessons from a Pilot ProgramACM Transactions on Computing Education10.1145/358377923:2(1-31)Online publication date: 8-Jun-2023
        • (2023)The TACS Model: Understanding Primary School Teachers’ Adoption of Computer Science Pedagogical ContentACM Transactions on Computing Education10.1145/356958723:2(1-31)Online publication date: 14-Mar-2023

        View Options

        View options

        PDF

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader

        HTML Format

        View this article in HTML Format.

        HTML Format

        Login options

        Media

        Figures

        Other

        Tables

        Share

        Share

        Share this Publication link

        Share on social media