Three Faculty Viewpoints on Computational Thinking: Results from a Summer PD Workshop (Poster 2)

• In Event: Expansive Views on the Role of Computing and Digital Literacies in Teacher Education

Abstract

Summary
This research summarizes findings from a workshop for faculty instructors on integrating Computational Thinking (CT) in STEM teacher education. Prior research on CT and teacher education suggests it can be taught to STEM teachers (Yadav et al., 2014; Ketelhut et al., 2020) and that CT integration can enhance STEM teaching (Schanzer et al., 2015; Weintrop et al., 2022); thus, we focus here on faculty instructors’ role in education for these STEM teachers.

Objectives
For CT to be integrated into STEM courses equitably, we need broad inclusion within STEM teacher education programs. This study represents a novel effort to understand and develop the knowledge of CT integration by instructors from universities across a state in the mid-Atlantic.

Data and methods
We led a three-hour workshop on Zoom for interested faculty and other instructors of math & science teaching methods courses or similar courses (e.g., elementary methods course instructor). Ten faculty instructors participated. Workshop participants engaged with a CT activity simulating a wolf, sheep, and grass ecosystem (Wilensky, 1997) before discussing their current understandings of CT. We then discussed two frameworks of CT – the PRADA framework (Dong et al., 2019) and the CT in Math & Science Taxonomy (Weintrop et al., 2016). We concluded by presenting our current integration of CT within a math and science methods course before giving instructors some structured time in breakout rooms to plan out their own CT integrations. We analyzed video recording of the workshop using inductive coding, then organized comments thematically. We also met with several instructors for a one-hour interview several months after the workshop to discuss their plans to integrate CT into their fall courses.

Results
We found three conceptualizations of CT expressed in the workshop. Several instructors viewed CT as a collection of “things we do naturally when we approach a problem” that applies to many subjects and generalizes to solving many kinds of problems. Others viewed it as a distinct set of technical skills from general problem-solving skills, and felt that activities often needed to be discussed carefully with teacher candidates to highlight the CT concepts present. A third view held that CT “enculturates people into computer science ways of thinking, vocabulary, and cultural norms.”

For integrating CT within courses, plans were often “bottom-up”: instructors focused on one activity or lesson at a time and looked for ways to integrate relevant CT skills and practices. One instructor designed a new activity, while the other had modified the first week’s lesson plan and had future plans to mention CT in each lesson.

Significance
Faculty instructors demonstrated sustainable implementation plans to integrate CT in their teacher education courses. However, the faculty instructors who participated in this workshop did not all agree on what CT is, and thus teacher candidates at different universities or even just in different courses may receive different or conflicting viewpoints. Plans for university- or state-wide PD are recommended to find common ground and ensure plans for including CT in teacher education will be compatible or complementary.

Authors

• Peter Moon, University of Maryland

• Janet Dawn Kim Walkoe, University of Maryland