More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/

research-article

Public Access

The Teacher Accessibility, Equity, and Content (TEC) Rubric for Evaluating Computing Curricula

Authors:

David Weintrop,

Merijke Coenraad,

Diana FranklinAuthors Info & Claims

ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), Volume 20, Issue 1

Article No.: 5, Pages 1 - 30

https://doi.org/10.1145/3371155

Published: 13 December 2019 Publication History

All formats PDF

Abstract

In response to the growing call to bring the powerful ideas of computer science to all learners, education decision makers, including teachers and administrators, are tasked with making consequential decisions on what curricula to use. Often, these decision makers have not been trained in computer science and are unfamiliar with the concepts taught and tools used. This is especially true in K–12 contexts where computer science expertise is less prevalent. To aid in the decision-making process around computing curricula, this article introduces the TEC Rubric. The TEC Rubric is composed of three main categories: Teacher Accessibility, Equity, and Content designed to support educational decision makers and designers when it comes to computing instruction. Along with presenting the full rubric and the process used in its creation, this article describes two examples of the rubric in action. First, the TEC Rubric is used to evaluate two widespread computer science curricula to demonstrate its evaluative capacity highlighting differences between the two curricula. Second, we show how the TEC Rubric can be used to help inform the design of new K–12 computing curricula. Overall, the TEC Rubric is designed to serve as a useful resource in the ongoing quest to bring effective, equitable, and engaging computing instruction into schools around the world.

References

[1]

AchieveNJ. 2016. The New Jersey Student Learning Standards for Science. https://www.state.nj.us/education/aps/cccs/science/ScienceInstructionCompanion.pdf.

[2]

Joint Task Force on Computing Curricula, Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) and IEEE Computer Society. 2013. Computer Science Curricula 2013: Curriculum Guidelines for Undergraduate Degree Programs in Computer Science. ACM, New York, NY, USA.

Digital Library

[3]

H. G. Andrade. 2005. Teaching with rubrics: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Coll. Teach. 53, 1 (2005), 27--31.

[4]

C. Ashcraft et al. 2016. Women in Tech: The Facts. National Center for Women & Technology (NCWIT). https://www.ncwit.org/sites/default/files/resources/ncwit_women-in-it_2016-full-report_final-web06012016.pdf.

[5]

O. Astrachan et al. 2011. The CS10K project: Mobilizing the community to transform high school computing. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 85--86.

Digital Library

[6]

T. Bell et al. 2010. Computer science in New Zealand high schools. In Proceedings of the 12th Australasian Conference on Computing Education-Volume 103. 15--22.

Digital Library

[7]

S. Bocconi, A. Chioccariello, G. Dettori, A. Ferrari, and K. Engelhardt. 2016. Developing computational thinking in compulsory education -- Implications for policy and practice. EUR 28295 EN.

[8]

H. Borko. 2004. Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educ. Res. 33, 8 (2004), 3--15.

[9]

C. Brady et al. 2016. All roads lead to computing: Making, participatory simulations, and social computing as pathways to computer science. IEEE Trans. Educ. 60, 99 (2016), 1--8.

[10]

K. Brennan and M. Resnick. 2012. New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, Canada. http://web.media.mit.edu/&sim;kbrennan/files/Brennan_Resnick_AERA2012_CT.pdf.

[11]

D. J. Briars. 2014. Curriculum materials matter: Evaluating the evaluation process. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2014). https://www.nctm.org/News-and-Calendar/Messages-from-the-President/Archive/Diane-Briars/Curriculum-Materials-Matter_-Evaluating-the-Evaluation-Process/.

[12]

L. Buechley et al. 2008. The LilyPad Arduino: using computational textiles to investigate engagement, aesthetics, and diversity in computer science education. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 423--432.

Digital Library

[13]

R. Bybee and C. Chopyak. 2017. Instructional Materials and Implementation of NGSS: Demand, Supply, and Strategic Opportunities. A report for the Carnegie Corporation of New York. https://www.carnegie.org/media/filer_public/6b/57/6b57c995-e6c7-485d-ad17-dcd807a19926/ngss_report_carnegie_corp_72017.pdf.

[14]

V. Cateté et al. 2016. Developing a rubric for a creative CS principles lab. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE’16). 290--295.

Digital Library

[15]

C. E. Coburn, W. R. Penuel, and K. E. Geil. 2013. Research-Practice Partnerships: A Strategy for Leveraging Research for Educational Improvement in School Districts. William T. Grant Foundation, New York, NY.

[16]

CodeHS. 2019. https://codehs.com/.

[17]

Computer Science Teaching Rubric. 2019. https://sites.google.com/sfusd.edu/csplc/resources/teaching-rubric.

[18]

T. Crick and S. Sentance. 2011. Computing at school: Stimulating computing education in the UK. In Proceedings of the 11th Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research -- (Koli Calling’11). 122.

[19]

CSTA Standards Task Force. 2016. CSTA K--12 Computer Science Standards (Revised 2016). Association for Computing Machinery. https://drive.google.com/open?id=1-dPTAI1yk2HYPKUWZ6DqaM6aVUDa9iby.

[20]

Computer Science Teachers Association. 2017. CSTA K-12 Computer Science Standards, Revised 2017. Retrieved from http://www.csteachers.org/standards.

[21]

J. Cuny. 2011. Transforming computer science education in high schools. Computer 44, 6 (2011), 107--109.

Digital Library

[22]

J. Cuny. 2015. Transforming K--12 computing education: An update and a call to action. ACM Inroads 6, 3 (2015), 54--57.

Digital Library

[23]

L. Darling-Hammond. 2000. Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Educ. Pol. Anal. Arch. 8, 1 (2000), 44.

[24]

L. A. Delyser et al. 2018. Priming the computer science teacher pump. (2018), 62. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DXgpLjl_k87TVpQ0cLusfdjnYySIgIjT/view?usp=sharing.

[25]

P. J. Denning et al. 1989. Computing as a discipline. Computer 22, 2 (1989), 63--70.

Digital Library

[26]

B. DiSalvo et al. 2014. Saving face while geeking out: Video game testing as a justification for learning computer science. J. Learn. Sci. 23, 3 (2014), 272--315.

[27]

K. Donathan and P. Tymann. 2010. The development and use of scoring rubrics:(or how to grade thousands of exams without losing your mind). In Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 477--477.

[28]

H. Dwyer et al. 2014. Identifying elementary students’ pre-instructional ability to develop algorithms and step-by-step instructions. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 511--516.

Digital Library

[29]

R. Eglash et al. 2013. Toward culturally responsive computing education. Commun. ACM. 56, 7 (2013), 33--36.

Digital Library

[30]

EQuIP. 2013. EQuIP Rubric for Lessons & Units: ELA/Literacy (Grades 3--5) and ELA (Grades 6--12). http://www.achieve.org/files/EQuIP-ELArubric-06-24-13-FINAL.pdf.

[31]

B. Ericson et al. 2016. State-based progress towards computer science for all. ACM Inroads 7, 4 (2016), 57--60.

Digital Library

[32]

C. Fancsali, L. Tigani, P. Toro Isaza, and R. Cole. 2018. A landscape study of computer science education in NYC: early findings and implications for policy and practice. In Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, New York, NY, USA, 44--49.

[33]

D. A. Fields et al. 2018. Putting making into high school computer science classrooms: Promoting equity in teaching and learning with electronic textiles in exploring computer science. Equity Excell. Educ. 51, 1 (Jan. 2018), 21--35.

[34]

S. Fincher et al. 2010. Repositories of teaching material and communities of use: Nifty assignments and the greenroom. In Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Computing Education Research. 8.

Digital Library

[35]

D. Franklin et al. 2011. Animal Tlatoque: Attracting middle school students to computing through culturally relevant themes. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 453--458.

Digital Library

[36]

D. Franklin et al. 2020. Scratch encore: The design and pilot of a culturally relevant intermediate scratch curriculum. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education.

Digital Library

[37]

D. Franklin et al. 2017. Using upper-elementary student performance to understand conceptual sequencing in a blocks-based curriculum. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 231--236.

Digital Library

[38]

M. G. Fullan. 1993. Why teachers must become change agents. Educ. Leader. 50, 6 (1993), 13.

[39]

S. Furber. 2012. Shut down or restart? The way forward for computing in UK schools. The Royal Society, London. (2012). https://royalsociety.org/&sim;/media/education/computing-in-schools/2012-01-12-computing-in-schools.pdf.

[40]

J. Gal-Ezer and C. Stephenson. 2010. Computer science teacher preparation is critical. ACM Inroads. 1, 1 (2010), 61.

Digital Library

[41]

G. Gay. 2014. Culturally responsive teaching principles, practices, and effects. Handbook of Urban Education. Routledge, 353--372.

[42]

J. Goode et al. 2012. Beyond curriculum: The exploring computer science program. ACM Inroads 3, 2 (2012), 47--53.

Digital Library

[43]

J. Goode. 2010. Connecting K--16 curriculum & policy: Making computer science engaging, accessible, and hospitable for underrepresented students. In Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 22--26.

Digital Library

[44]

J. Goode et al. 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 (SIGCSE’14). 493--498.

Digital Library

[45]

J. Goode. 2007. If you build teachers, will students come? The role of teachers in broadening computer science learning for urban youth. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 36, 1 (2007), 65--88.

[46]

Google and Gallup. 2015. Images of Computer Science: Perceptions Among Students, Parents and Educators in the U.S. https://services.google.com/fh/files/misc/images-of-computer-science-report.pdf.

[47]

Google Inc. and Gallup Inc. 2016. Trends in the State of Computer Science in U.S. K--12 Schools. https://services.google.com/fh/files/misc/trends-in-the-state-of-computer-science-report.pdf.

[48]

S. Grover and S. Basu. 2017. Measuring student learning in introductory block-based programming: Examining misconceptions of loops, variables, and Boolean logic. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 267--272.

[49]

S. Grover and R. Pea. 2013. Computational thinking in K--12: A review of the state of the field. Educ. Res. 42, 1 (2013), 38--43.

[50]

M. Guzdial et al. 2014. Georgia computes! An intervention in a US state, with formal and informal education in a policy context. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. 14, 2 (2014), 1--29.

Digital Library

[51]

O. Hazzan et al. 2008. A model for high school computer science education: The four key elements that make it! ACM SIGCSE Bull. 40, 1 (2008), 281--285.

[52]

E. Henrick, S. McGee, R. Greenberg, L. Dettori, A. Rasmussen, D. Yanek, and D. Reed. 2019. Assessing the effectiveness of computer science RPPs: The case of CAFE CS. In Proceedings of the 2019 Research on Equity and Sustained Participation in Engineering, Computing, and Technology (RESPECT'19).

[53]

N. Holbert. 2016. Leveraging cultural values and “ways of knowing” to increase diversity in maker activities. Int. J. Child-Comput. Interact. 9--10 (2016), 33--39.

Digital Library

[54]

D. S. Hong and K. M. Choi. 2014. A comparison of Korean and American secondary school textbooks: The case of quadratic equations. Edu. Stud. Math. 85, 2 (2014), 241--263.

[55]

L. Hoogstra et al. 2011. Wisconsin CREATE Initiative: Year 2 Evaluation. Learning Point Associates. https://www.air.org/sites/default/files/downloads/report/CREATE_Year_2_Evaluation_Report-September_2011_FINAL_0.pdf.

[56]

M. Israel et al. 2018. School-embedded and district-wide instructional coaching in K--8 computer science: Implications for including students with disabilities. J. Technol. Teach. Educ. 26, 3 (2018), 471--501.

[57]

M. Israel et al. 2014. Supporting all learners in school-wide computational thinking: A cross-case qualitative analysis. Computers and Education 82 (2014), 263--279.

Digital Library

[58]

S. P. Jones et al. 2011. Computing at school. Int. Compar. 7 (2011).

[59]

A. Jonsson. 2014. Rubrics as a way of providing transparency in assessment. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 39, 7 (2014), 840--852.

[60]

A. Jonsson and G. Svingby. 2007. The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity and educational consequences. Educ. Res. Rev. 2, 2 (2007), 130--144.

[61]

K--12 Computer Science Framework. 2016. http://www.k12cs.org.

[62]

M. Koehler and P. Mishra. 2009. What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Contemp. Iss. Technol. Teach. Educ. 9, 1 (2009), 60--70.

[63]

M. Lachney. 2017. Computational communities: African-American cultural capital in computer science education. Comput. Sci. Educ. 27, 3--4 (2017), 175--196.

[64]

R. E. Ladner and M. Israel. 2016. “For all” in “computer science for all.” Commun. ACM. 59, 9 (2016), 26--28.

Digital Library

[65]

J. R. Landis and G. G. Koch. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33, 1 (1977), 159--174.

[66]

M. Leake and C. M. Lewis. 2017. Recommendations for designing CS resource sharing sites for all teachers. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’17). 357--362.

[67]

I. Lee et al. 2014. Integrating computational thinking across the K--8 curriculum. ACM Inroads 5, 4 (2014), 64--71.

Digital Library

[68]

N. Liberman et al. 2012. “Regressed experts” as a new state in teachers’ professional development: Lessons from computer science teachers’ adjustments to substantial changes in the curriculum. Comput. Sci. Educ. 22, 3 (2012), 257--283.

[69]

R. B. Lindsey et al. 2008. Culturally Proficient Inquiry: A Lens for Identifying and Examining Educational Gaps. Corwin Press.

[70]

T. R. Loveland. 2005. Writing standards-based rubrics for technology education classrooms: The use of rubrics goes beyond the simple need for objective grading in classrooms. Technol. Teach. 65, 2 (2005), 19--23.

[71]

J. H. Maloney et al. 2008. Programming by choice: Urban youth learning programming with scratch. ACM SIGCSE Bull. 40, 1 (2008), 367--371.

Digital Library

[72]

J. Margolis. 2008. Stuck in the Shallow End: Education, Race, and Computing. The MIT Press.

Digital Library

[73]

J. Margolis and A. Fisher. 2003. Unlocking the Clubhouse: Women in Computing. The MIT Press.

[74]

J. C. Marshall et al. 2010. The design and validation of EQUIP: An instrument to assess inquiry-based instruction. Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 8, 2 (2010), 299--321.

[75]

M. McDonald and G. McDonald. 1999. Computer science curriculum assessment. ACM SIGCSE Bull. 31, 1 (1999), 194--197.

Digital Library

[76]

S. M. Mitchell and W. G. Lutters. 2006. Assessing the value of computer science course material repositories. In Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training Workshops (CSEETW’06). 2--2.

[77]

L. C. Moll et al. 1992. Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theor. Prac. 31, 2 (1992), 132--141.

[78]

B. M. Moskal and J. A. Leydens. 2000. Scoring rubric development: Validity and reliability. Pract. Assess., Res. Eval. 7, 10 (2000), 71--81.

[79]

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Design, Selection, and Implementation of Instructional Materials for the Next Generation Science Standards: Proceedings of a Workshop. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.17226/25001

[80]

National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. 1996. What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future. Report of the National Commission on Teaching 8 America's Future. National Commission on Teaching and America's Future, Woodbridge, VA.

[81]

L. Ni and M. Guzdial. 2012. Who AM I?: Understanding high school computer science teachers’ professional identity. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’12). 499.

[82]

M. Ong. 2011. The status of women of color in computer science. Commun. ACM 54, 7 (2011), 32--34.

Digital Library

[83]

E. Panadero and A. Jonsson. 2013. The use of scoring rubrics for formative assessment purposes revisited: A review. Educ. Res. Rev. 9 (2013), 129--144.

[84]

E. Panadero and M. Romero. 2014. To rubric or not to rubric? The effects of self-assessment on self-regulation, performance and self-efficacy. Assess. Educ.: Princ., Polic. Pract. 21, 2 (2014), 133--148.

[85]

W. R. Penuel and D. J. Gallagher. 2017. Creating Research Practice Partnerships in Education. Harvard Education Press.

[86]

N. Ragonis et al. 2010. A survey of computer science teacher preparation programs in Israel tells US: Computer science deserves a designated high school teacher preparation! In Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 401--405.

[87]

R. Raman et al. 2015. Computer science (CS) education in Indian schools: Situation analysis using Darmstadt model. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. 15, 2 (2015), 1--36.

Digital Library

[88]

M. Resnick et al. 2009. Scratch: Programming for all. Commun. ACM 52, 11 (2009), 60.

Digital Library

[89]

K. M. Rich et al. 2019. A K--8 debugging learning trajectory derived from research literature. In Proceedings of the 50th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. 745--751.

Digital Library

[90]

K. M. Rich et al. 2018. Decomposition: A K--8 computational thinking learning trajectory. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER’18). 124--132.

Digital Library

[91]

K. M. Rich et al. 2017. K--8 learning trajectories derived from research literature: Sequence, repetition, conditionals. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research. 182--190.

Digital Library

[92]

R. Roque et al. 2016. Supporting diverse and creative collaboration in the scratch online community. Mass Collaboration and Education. Springer, 241--256.

[93]

D. Rose. 2000. Universal design for learning. J. Spec. Educ. Technol. 15, 4 (2000), 47--51.

[94]

D. H. Rose and A. Meyer. 2002. Teaching Every Student in the Digital Age: Universal Design for Learning.

[95]

J. J. Ryoo et al. 2013. Democratizing computer science knowledge: Transforming the face of computer science through public high school education. Learn., Media Technol. 38, 2 (2013), 161--181.

[96]

L. Seiter and B. Foreman. 2013. Modeling the learning progressions of computational thinking of primary grade students. In Proceedings of the 9th International ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research. 59--66.

[97]

S. Sentance et al. 2012. Grand challenges for the UK: Upskilling teachers to teach computer science within the secondary curriculum. In Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Primary and Secondary Computing Education-- (WiPSCE’12). 82.

Digital Library

[98]

S. Sentance and A. Csizmadia. 2017. Computing in the curriculum: Challenges and strategies from a teacher's perspective. Educ. Inform. Technol. 22, 2 (2017), 469--495.

Digital Library

[99]

A. Settle et al. 2012. Infusing computational thinking into the middle- and high-school curriculum. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education. 22--27.

Digital Library

[100]

L. S. Shulman. 1986. Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educ. Res. 15, 2 (1986), 4--14.

[101]

M. Singer and J. Tuomi. 1999. Selecting Instructional Materials. National Academies Press.

[102]

D. D. Stevens and A. J. Levi. 2013. Introduction to Rubrics: An Assessment Tool to Save Grading Time, Convey Effective Feedback, and Promote Student Learning. Stylus Publishing, LLC.

[103]

The College Board. 2018. About AP Scores. https://apstudents.collegeboard.org/about-ap-scores.

[104]

The College Board. 2017. AP National Summary Report. https://research.collegeboard.org/programs/ap/data.

[105]

The Framework for Teaching Evaluation Instrument. 2013. https://danielsongroup.org/framework/framework-teaching.

[106]

The SCRIPT: Strategic Planning Tool for School Districts. 2018. https://www.csforall.org/projects_and_programs/script/.

[107]

D. Thompson et al. 2013. The role of teachers in implementing curriculum changes. In Proceedings of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE’13). 245.

Digital Library

[108]

J. Wang, S. H. Moghadam, and J. Tiffany-Morales. 2017. Social perceptions in computer science and implications for diverse students. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research (ICER'17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 47--55.

[109]

E. Wheeler, J. Wachen, A. Rasmussen, D. Franklin, and D. Weintrop. 2020. Introducing computer science into K-8 classrooms: Teachers' perspectives from a large, urban school district. In Proceedings of the 2020 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, New York, NY, USA.

[110]

V. White et al. 2018. Illuminating the computing pathway for girls in Mississippi. In Proceedings of the ASEE Conference and Exposition.

[111]

C. Wilson et al. 2010. Running on Empty: The Failure to Teach K--12 Computer Science in the Digital Age. The Association for Computing Machinery and the Computer Science Teachers Association.

[112]

J. M. Wing. 2006. Computational thinking. Commun. ACM 49, 3 (2006), 33--35.

Digital Library

[113]

A. Yadav et al. 2014. Computational thinking in elementary and secondary teacher education. ACM Trans. Comput. Educ. 14, 1 (2014), 5.

Digital Library

[114]

A. Yadav et al. 2016. Expanding computer science education in schools: understanding teacher experiences and challenges. Comput. Sci. Educ. 26, 4 (2016), 235--254.

[115]

M. Yuan and M. Recker. 2015. Not all rubrics are equal: A review of rubrics for evaluating the quality of open educational resources. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. 16, 5 (2015).

[116]

S. Zweben and B. Bizot. 2018. 2017 Taulbee survey. Comput. Res. News 30, 5 (2018), 47.

[117]

Achieve and National Science Teachers Association. 2016. EQuIP Rubric for Lessons 8 Units: Science Version 3.0. https://www.nextgenscience.org/resources/equip-rubric-science.

Cited By

Bart AEnglert MAromando JLee HRutherford TMonga MLonati VBarendsen ESheard JPaterson J(2024)The CS1 Python Bakery: A Modern "Batteries Included" Open-Source Curriculum with All the FixingsProceedings of the 2024 on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 110.1145/3649217.3653630(667-673)Online publication date: 3-Jul-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3649217.3653630
Cannady JRosato JSchonfeld PStephenson BStone JBattestilli LRebelsky SShoop L(2024)Exploring Collaboration as a Bridge to K-8 CS IntegrationProceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 210.1145/3626253.3635565(1590-1591)Online publication date: 14-Mar-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3626253.3635565
Perez-Murueta PGonzález-Guerra L(2024)Designing Evaluation Criteria for Disciplinary Competencies: A Case Study of Computer Science2024 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON)10.1109/EDUCON60312.2024.10578906(1-4)Online publication date: 8-May-2024
https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON60312.2024.10578906
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

The Teacher Accessibility, Equity, and Content (TEC) Rubric for Evaluating Computing Curricula
1. Social and professional topics
  1. Professional topics
    1. Computing education
      1. K-12 education

Recommendations

Supporting Elementary Teacher's Reflections on Equity in CS Education: A Case Study Approach
ICER '19: Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research

The dearth of women and people of color in the field of computer science is a well-documented phenomenon. Following Obama's 2016 declaration of the need for a nationwide CS for All movement in the US, educators, school districts, states and the US-based ...
Teacher Perceptions of Equity in High School Computer Science Classrooms

Effective and equitable CS teaching is contingent on teachers’ robust understanding of equity issues in CS classrooms. To this end, this study examined high school teachers’ perceptions of equity during their participation in a CS teacher certificate ...
Situating Equity in Education Policy to Advance Broadening Participation in Computing (BPC)
RESPECT 2024: Proceedings of the 2024 on RESPECT Annual Conference

State computing education policy advocates utilize legal language to build systemic change for broadening participation in computing (BPC) efforts. This study posits that state education policymaking, involving law and regulations that influence the ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Transactions on Computing Education

ACM Transactions on Computing Education Volume 20, Issue 1

March 2020

210 pages

EISSN:1946-6226

DOI:10.1145/3363561

Editor:
Chris Hundhausen
Washington State University, USA

Issue’s Table of Contents

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 the author(s) 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: 13 December 2019

Accepted: 01 October 2019

Revised: 01 October 2019

Received: 01 May 2019

Published in TOCE Volume 20, Issue 1

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article
Research
Refereed

Funding Sources

National Science Foundation

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

18
Total Citations
View Citations
2,634
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)520
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)44

Reflects downloads up to 05 Jan 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Bart AEnglert MAromando JLee HRutherford TMonga MLonati VBarendsen ESheard JPaterson J(2024)The CS1 Python Bakery: A Modern "Batteries Included" Open-Source Curriculum with All the FixingsProceedings of the 2024 on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 110.1145/3649217.3653630(667-673)Online publication date: 3-Jul-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3649217.3653630
Cannady JRosato JSchonfeld PStephenson BStone JBattestilli LRebelsky SShoop L(2024)Exploring Collaboration as a Bridge to K-8 CS IntegrationProceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 210.1145/3626253.3635565(1590-1591)Online publication date: 14-Mar-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3626253.3635565
Perez-Murueta PGonzález-Guerra L(2024)Designing Evaluation Criteria for Disciplinary Competencies: A Case Study of Computer Science2024 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON)10.1109/EDUCON60312.2024.10578906(1-4)Online publication date: 8-May-2024
https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON60312.2024.10578906
Coenraad MRangel ADunbar K(2024)Utilizing a computational thinking engagement inventory to support inclusive computational thinking pathwaysJournal of Research on Technology in Education10.1080/15391523.2024.2398520(1-17)Online publication date: 4-Sep-2024
https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2024.2398520
McFadden Z(2024)ACESOR: a critical engagement in systems of oppression AI assessment toolAI and Ethics10.1007/s43681-024-00478-7Online publication date: 29-Apr-2024
https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-024-00478-7
Newton SAlemdar MGale JHernandez DEdwards DRyan MHelms MUsselman M(2023)Student-Centered Computing: Teacher Experiences in a New Introductory Computer Science CurriculumACM Transactions on Computing Education10.1145/361410123:4(1-26)Online publication date: 8-Nov-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3614101
Israel-Fishelson RMoon PTabak RWeintrop D(2023)Preparing K-12 Students to Meet their Data: Analyzing the Tools and Environments used in Introductory Data Science ContextsProceedings of the 2023 Symposium on Learning, Design and Technology10.1145/3594781.3594796(29-42)Online publication date: 23-Jun-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3594781.3594796
Tadimalla SLatulipe CMaher MMejias MPayton JRorrer AFiore JKwatny GRosen A(2023)Enabling Investigation of Impacts of Inclusive Collaborative Active Learning Practices on Intersectional Groups of Students in Computing Education2023 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE)10.1109/FIE58773.2023.10343317(1-10)Online publication date: 18-Oct-2023
https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE58773.2023.10343317
Fagerlund JLeino KKiuru NNiilo-Rämä M(2022)Finnish teachers’ and students’ programming motivation and their role in teaching and learning computational thinkingFrontiers in Education10.3389/feduc.2022.9487837Online publication date: 21-Nov-2022
https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.948783
Isvik ALytle NCatete VBarnes T(2022)Characterizing High School Participants’ Motivations and Outcomes in a Service-Oriented Summer InternshipProceedings of the 22nd Koli Calling International Conference on Computing Education Research10.1145/3564721.3564734(1-12)Online publication date: 17-Nov-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3564721.3564734
Show More Cited By

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

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 Article

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents