Teacher Attitudes & Beliefs in Computer Science (T-ABC): Development & Validation of a Teacher Survey Instrument
Article No.: 18, Pages 1 - 23
Abstract
Instrument development is an important step towards unlocking the analytical power of teacher attitudes and beliefs towards Computer Science (CS). Teacher dispositions have strong empirical and theoretical ties to teacher motivation, professional choices, and classroom practices. To determine consensus desirable attitudes and beliefs, we analyzed 17 key documents produced by 12 national and international organizations associated with CS and the CS education reform movement. An analysis of 98 relevant coded segments yielded four dispositional targets: an equity orientation, a teacher growth mindset, and key beliefs regarding (career) outcomes and epistemology of CS. Statements crafted for these targets as well as self-efficacy were reviewed through an expert panel (N = 5) and a pilot study (N = 22) before the T-ABC was administered to elementary teachers in a large grant-funded outreach project (N = 772). Psychometric analysis demonstrates high reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.89) and satisfactory extraction and loading onto a three factor model, with CS beliefs, growth mindset, and self-efficacy as major factors. Identification and measurements of teacher dispositions enables further analysis of how teacher beliefs may support or hinder effective practice in CS instruction, how teacher populations may differ, and how identified dispositions may change with exposure to various CS learning experiences.
References
[1]
Sandra K. Abell and Marie Roth. 1992. Constraints to teaching elementary science: A case study of a science enthusiast student teacher. Sci. Educ. 76, 6 (1992), 581–595. DOI:
[2]
Mike Allen. 2017. Factor analysis: Varimax rotation. In The SAGE Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods. DOI:
[3]
Association for Computing Machinery. 2018. Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. Retrieved from https://www.acm.org/code-of-ethics.
[4]
Albert Bandura. 1977. Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol. Rev. 84, 2 (1977), 191–215. DOI:
[5]
Elena Bender, Niclas Schaper, Michael E. Caspersen, Melanie Margaritis, and Peter Hubwieser. 2016. Identifying and formulating teachers’ beliefs and motivational orientations for computer science teacher education. Stud. High. Educ. 41, 11 (2016), 1958–1973. DOI:arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1004233.
[6]
Alissa Berg. 2012. De-marginalizing Science in the Early Elementary Classroom: Fostering Reform-based Teacher Change through Professional Development, Accountability, and Addressing Teachers’ Dilemmas. Ph.D. Dissertation. Columbia University. Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3507600).
[7]
Maureen Biggers, Anne Brauer, and Tuba Yilmaz. 2008. Student perceptions of computer science: A retention study comparing graduating seniors with CS leavers. SIGCSE Bull. 40, 1 (Mar.2008), 402–406. DOI:
[8]
Anthony Carpi, Darcy M. Ronan, Heather M. Falconer, and Nathan H. Lents. 2017. Cultivating minority scientists: Undergraduate research increases self-efficacy and career ambitions for underrepresented students in STEM. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 54, 2 (2017), 169–194. DOI:
[9]
Center on Educational Policy. 2008. Instructional time in elementary schools: A closer look at changes for specific subjects. Arts Educ. Polic. Rev. 109, 6 (2008), 23–28. DOI:
[10]
Ibrahim Cetin and M. Yasar Ozden. 2015. Development of computer programming attitude scale for university students. Comput. Applic. Eng. Educ. 23, 5 (2015), 667–672. DOI:
[11]
Kenneth Chang. 2009. White House begins campaign to promote science and math education. New York Times (Nov. 23, 2009). Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/24/science/24educ.html.
[12]
Kuanchin Chen and Alan Rea. 2018. Do pair programming approaches transcend coding? Measuring agile attitudes in diverse information systems courses. J. Inf. Syst. Educ. 29 (032018), 53–64.
[13]
Ji Young Cho and Eun-Hee Lee. 2014. Reducing confusion about grounded theory and qualitative content analysis: Similarities and differences. Qualit. Rep. 19, 32 (Aug.2014), 1–20. DOI:
[14]
Jody Clarke-Midura, Frederick J. Poole, Katarina Pantic, Chongning Sun, and Vicki Allan. 2018. How mother and father support affect youths’ interest in computer science. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 215–222. DOI:
[15]
Code.org. 2020. Curriculum Values. Retrieved from https://code.org/educate/curriculum/values.
[16]
Code.org. 2020. Professional Learning Values. Retrieved from https://code.org/educate/professional-learning/values.
[17]
Code.org. 2022. Computer Science Fundamentals. Retrieved from https://code.org/educate/curriculum/elementary-school.
[18]
Code.org, CSTA, and ECEP Alliance. 2021. 2021 State of computer science education: Accelerating action through advocacy. Retrieved from https://advocacy.code.org/stateofcs.
[19]
Computer Science Teachers Association. 2017. CSTA K12 Computer Science Standards. Retrieved from https://www.csteachers.org/page/standards.
[20]
Computer Science Teachers Association. 2020. Standards for Computer Science Teachers. Retrieved from https://csteachers.org/teacherstandards.
[21]
Computer Science Teachers Association and the Association for Computing Machinery, Inc. 2012. Computer Science K–8: Building a Strong Foundation. Retrieved from https://csteachers.org/documents/en-us/25b0b43f-0817-4c08-9210-f1a96f2b1c7d/1/.
[22]
Computer Science Teachers Association and the International Society for Technology in Education. 2011. Computational Thinking Teacher Resource, 2nd edition. Retrieved from https://cdn.iste.org/www-root/ct-documents/ct-teacher-resources_2ed-pdf.pdf?sfvrsn=2.
[23]
Computers in Education Division (CoED) of the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE). 2017. Bylaws: ASEE Computers in Education Division. Retrieved from https://www.asee.org/documents/member-resources/divisions/bylaws/CoED-bylaws-2017.pdf.
[24]
Council of Chief State School Officers. 2013. Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium InTASC Model Core Teaching Standards and Learning Progressions for Teachers 1.0: A Resource for Ongoing Teacher Development, Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington, DC.
[25]
John W. Creswell. 2007. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
[26]
John W. Creswell and Cheryl N. Poth. 2016. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches. Sage Publications.
[27]
Margaret S. Crocco and Arthur T. Costigan. 2007. The narrowing of curriculum and pedagogy in the age of accountability urban educators speak out. Urban Educ. 42, 6 (2007), 512–535. DOI:
[28]
James Deehan. 2017. The Science Teaching Efficacy Belief Instruments (STEBI A and B): A Comprehensive Review of Methods and Findings from 25 years of Science Education Research. Springer. DOI:
[29]
Brian Dorn and Allison Elliott Tew. 2015. Empirical validation and application of the computing attitudes survey. Comput. Sci. Educ. 25, 1 (2015), 1–36. DOI:
[30]
Erskine S. Dottin. 2009. Professional judgment and dispositions in teacher education. Teach. Teacher Educ. 25, 1 (2009), 83–88. DOI:
[31]
Carol Dweck. 2008. Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. Ballatine Books.
[32]
Charles D. Dziuban and Edwin C. Shirkey. 1974. When is a correlation matrix appropriate for factor analysis? Some decision rules. Psychol. Bull. 81, 6 (1974), 358.
[33]
Sibel Erduran and Zoubeida R. Dagher. 2014. Reconceptualizing the Nature of Science for Science Education: Scientific Knowledge, Practices and Other Family Categories. Springer Netherlands. DOI:
[34]
Jayne Everson and Amy J. Ko. 2022. “I would be afraid to be a bad CS teacher” Factors influencing participation in pre-service secondary CS teacher education. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research. 237–246.
[35]
Carol L. Fletcher and Jayce R. Warner. 2021. CAPE: A framework for assessing equity throughout the computer science education ecosystem. Commun. ACM 64, 2 (2021), 23–25.
[36]
Joanna Goode, Julie Flapan, and Jane Margolis. 2018. Computer science for all. Diversif. Digit. Learn.: Online Liter. Educ. Opport. 45 (2018).
[37]
Google. 2014. Women who choose computer science—What really matters? Retrieved from https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/edu.google.com/en//pdfs/women-who-choose-what-really.pdf.
[38]
Google. 2015. Images of Computer Science: Perceptions among Students, Parents and Educators in the U.S. Retrieved from https://services.google.com/fh/files/misc/images-of-computer-science-report.pdf.
[39]
Anita Greenwood and Michelle Scribner-MacLean. 1997. Examining elementary teachers’ explanations of their science content knowledge. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. 2–18.
[40]
Melih Gurer, Ibrahim Cetin, and Ercan Top. 2019. Factors affecting students’ attitudes toward computer programming. Inform. Educ. 18 (112019), 281–296. DOI:
[41]
Markku S. Hannula, Pietro Di Martino, Marilena Pantziara, Qiaoping Zhang, Francesca Morselli, Einat Heyd-Metzuyanim, Sonja Lutovac, Raimo Kaasila, James A. Middleton, Amanda Jansen, and Gerald A. Goldin. 2016. Attitudes, Beliefs, Motivation, and Identity in Mathematics Education. Springer. DOI:
[42]
Andrew Hoegh and Barbara M. Moskal. 2009. Examining science and engineering students’ attitudes toward computer science. In Proceedings of the 39th IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. 1–6. DOI:
[43]
IEEE-CS/ACM Joint Task Force on Software Engineering Ethics and Professional Practices. 1999. Code of Ethics. Retrieved from https://www.computer.org/education/code-of-ethics.
[44]
International Society for Technology in Education. 2018. ISTE Standards for Educators: Computational Thinking Competencies. Retrieved from https://www.iste.org/standards/computational-thinking.
[45]
Carolyn Jones. 2017. Girls draw even with boys in high school STEM classes, but still lag in college and careers. EdSource (032017). Retrieved from https://edsource.org/2017/girls-now-outnumber-boys-in-high-school-stem-but-still-lag-in-college-and-career/578444.
[46]
Maria Kallia and Quintin Cutts. 2021. Re-examining inequalities in computer science participation from a Bourdieusian sociological perspective. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER’21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 379–392. DOI:
[47]
Kim H. Koh. 2017. Authentic assessment. In Proceeding of the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
[48]
Siu-cheung Kong, Ming Chiu, and Ming Lai. 2018. A study of primary school students’ interest, collaboration attitude, and programming empowerment in computational thinking education. Comput. Educ. 127 (092018). DOI:
[49]
Siu-cheung Kong, Robert Li, and Ron Kwok. 2018. Measuring parents’ perceptions of programming education in P–12 schools: Scale development and validation. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 57 (062018), 073563311878318. DOI:
[50]
K-12 Computer Science Framework Steering Committee. 2016. K–12 Computer Science Framework. Retrieved from http://www.k12cs.org/.
[51]
Norman Lederman. 1999. Teachers’ understanding of the nature of science and classroom practice: Factors that facilitate or impede the relationship. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 36, 8 (1999), 916–929.
[52]
Irene Lee, Fred Martin, Jill Denner, Bob Coulter, Walter Allan, Jeri Erickson, Joyce Malyn-Smith, and Linda Werner. 2011. Computational thinking for youth in practice. ACM Inroads 2, 1 (Feb.2011), 32–37. DOI:
[53]
Robert Lent, Steven Brown, and Gail Hackett. 1994. Toward a unifying social cognitive theory of career and academic interest, choice, and performance. J. Vocat. Behav. 45 (081994), 79–122. DOI:
[54]
Alex Lishinski and Aman Yadav. 2019. Motivation, Attitudes, and Dispositions. Cambridge University Press, 801–826. DOI:
[55]
Alejandra J. Magana, Michael L. Falk, Camilo Vieira, and Michael J. Reese. 2016. A case study of undergraduate engineering students’ computational literacy and self-beliefs about computing in the context of authentic practices. Comput. Hum. Behav. 61, C (Aug.2016), 427–442. DOI:
[56]
Lauri Malmi, Judy Sheard, Päivi Kinnunen, Simon, and Jane Sinclair. 2020. Theories and models of emotions, attitudes, and self-efficacy in the context of programming education. In Proceedings of theACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 36–47. DOI:
[57]
Jane Margolis. 2017. Stuck in the Shallow End: Education, Race, and Computing (2nd ed.). The MIT Press.
[58]
Sharan B. Merriam and Elizabeth J. Tisdell. 2015. Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. John Wiley & Sons.
[59]
Microsoft TEALS and NCWIT. 2019. Guide to Inclusive Computer Science Education: How educators can encourage and engage all students in computer science. Retrieved from https://ncwit.org/resource/csedguide/.
[60]
Matthew B. Miles and A. Michael Huberman. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Sage Publications.
[61]
Laurie Murphy and Lynda Thomas. 2008. Dangers of a fixed mindset: Implications of self-theories research for computer science education. SIGCSE Bull. 40, 3 (June2008), 271–275. DOI:
[62]
National Center for Women and Information Technology. 2019. Computer science professional development guide: How education leaders can build teacher, school counselor and administrator capacity to support equitable computer science education. Retrieved from http://www.ncwit.org/cspdguide/.
[63]
National Center for Women and Information Technology. 2019. Moving Beyond Computer Literacy: Why Schools Should Teach Computer Science. Retrieved from https://ncwit.org/resource/schools/.
[64]
National Center for Women and Information Technology. 2019. Why Should Young People Consider Careers in Computing and Information Technology? Retrieved from https://www.ncwit.org/youngwomen/.
[65]
Richard G. Netemeyer, William O. Bearden, and Subhash Sharma. 2003. Scaling Procedures: Issues and Applications. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Retrieved from https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/scaling-procedures/book10174.
[66]
Outlier Research & Evaluation. 2017. BASICS Study ECS Teacher Implementation and Contextual Factor Questionnaire Measures {Measurement scales}. Outlier Research & Evaluation at UChicago STEM Education, University of Chicago. Retrieved from http://outlier.uchicago.edu/basics/resources/Measures-TeacherImplementation/.
[67]
Django Paris. 2012. Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and practice. Educ. Res. 41, 3 (2012), 93–97. DOI:arXiv:https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12441244.
[68]
Fay Cobb Payton. 2003. Rethinking the digital divide. Commun. ACM 46, 6 (June2003), 89–91. DOI:
[69]
Linda Ramey-Gassert, M. Gail Shroyer, and John R. Staver. 1996. A qualitative study of factors influencing science teaching self-efficacy of elementary level teachers. Sci. Educ. 80 (1996), 283–315. DOI:
[70]
Mistilina Sato. 2014. What is the underlying conception of teaching of the edTPA? J. Teach. Educ. 65, 5 (2014), 421–434.
[71]
Margrit Schreier. 2012. Qualitative Content Analysis in Practice. Sage Publications.
[72]
Michael Scott and Gheorghita Ghinea. 2013. On the domain-specificity of mindsets: The relationship between aptitude beliefs and programming practice. IEEE Trans. Educ. 57 (122013), 169–174. DOI:
[73]
Michael James Scott and Gheorghita Ghinea. 2014. Measuring enrichment: The assembly and validation of an instrument to assess student self-beliefs in CS1. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER’14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, 123–130. DOI:
[74]
Hung-Bin Sheu, Robert Lent, Matthew Miller, Lee Penn, Megan Cusick, and Nancy Truong. 2018. Sources of self-efficacy and outcome expectations in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics domains: A meta-analysis. J. Vocat. Behav. 109 (102018), 118–136. DOI:
[75]
Matthew Sigelman. 2016. Getting past the lazy debate. Inside High. Educ. (2016). Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2016/02/08/debate-over-liberal-arts-vs-vocationalism-lazy-one-essay.
[76]
Burak Sisman and Sevda Kucuk. 2018. Pre-service teachers’ experiences in learning robotics design and programming. Inform. Educ. 17 (102018), 301–320. DOI:
[77]
Anselm Strauss and Juliet Corbin. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research. Sage Publications.
[78]
Derald Wing Sue, Annie I. Lin, Gina C. Torino, Christina M. Capodilupo, and David P. Rivera. 2009. Racial microaggressions and difficult dialogues on race in the classroom. Cultur. Divers. Ethn. Minor. Psychol. 15, 2 (2009), 183–190. DOI:
[79]
Stephen J. Thornton. 2005. Teaching Social Studies that Matters: Curriculum for Active Learning. Teachers College Press.
[80]
Peggy J. Tilgner. 1990. Avoiding science in the elementary school. Sci. Educ. 74, 4 (1990), 421–431. DOI:
[81]
Meng-Jung Tsai, Ching-Yeh Wang, and Po-Fen Hsu. 2019. Developing the computer programming self-efficacy scale for computer literacy education. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 56, 8 (2019), 1345–1360. DOI:
[82]
Alana Unfried, Malinda Faber, Daniel S. Stanhope, and Eric Wiebe. 2015. The development and validation of a measure of student attitudes toward science, technology, engineering, and math (S-STEM). J. Psychoeduc. Assess. 33, 7 (2015), 622–639. DOI:
[83]
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2021. Occupational Outlook Handbook. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/home.htm.
[84]
Tibor Vámos. 2010. Knowledge and Computing: Computer Epistemology and Constructive Skepticism (ned - new edition, 1 ed.). Central European University Press. Retrieved from.
[85]
Eric Weibe, Laurie Williams, Kai Yang, and Carol Miller. 2003. Computer Science Attitude Survey. Technical Report NCSU CSC TR-2003-01. North Carolina State University.
[86]
Cameron Wilson, Leigh Ann Sudol, Chris Stephenson, and Mark Stehlik. 2010. Running on Empty: The Failure to Teach K–12 Computer Science in the Digital Age. Retrieved from https://runningonempty.acm.org/.
[87]
So Yoon Yoon, Miles G. Evans, and Johannes Strobel. 2014. Validation of the teaching engineering self-efficacy scale for K–12 teachers: A structural equation modeling approach. J. Eng. Educ. 103, 3 (2014), 463–485. DOI:
Index Terms
- Teacher Attitudes & Beliefs in Computer Science (T-ABC): Development & Validation of a Teacher Survey Instrument
Recommendations
Complexities in Computer Science Teaching Attitudes and Beliefs: Findings of a Baseline Study of Elementary School Educators
SIGCSE 2023: Proceedings of the 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1Teacher dispositions have strong empirical and theoretical ties to teacher motivation, professional choices, and classroom practices. The attitudes and beliefs of teachers can mediate students' access to and experience with computer science (CS) ...
Towards an Instrument for CS Teacher Attitudes and Beliefs: Analysis of Component Factors from Foundational Professional Documents
SIGCSE '21: Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science EducationIn the quest to study and deliver Computer Science (CS) education reform, attention to gate-keeping teacher characteristics is imperative. Broad research in teacher education has demonstrated that teacher dispositions are an important driver of teacher ...
Building a Statewide Computer Science Teacher Pipeline
SIGCSE '17: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science EducationFrom 2012 to 2015, the number of Utah secondary teachers teaching computer science courses grew from 38 to 164. This growth was made possible by introducing three new CS teacher endorsements, which reduced the effort required for existing teachers to ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
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].
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 14 March 2023
Online AM: 27 October 2022
Accepted: 07 October 2022
Revised: 19 August 2022
Received: 02 February 2022
Published in TOCE Volume 23, Issue 2
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 745Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)321
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)44
Reflects downloads up to 18 Dec 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
Cited By
View allView Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign inFull Access
View options
View or Download as a PDF file.
PDFeReader
View online with eReader.
eReaderFull Text
View this article in Full Text.
Full TextHTML Format
View this article in HTML Format.
HTML Format