Leveraging State Policy and Funding to Create Innovative Computing Education Teacher Preparation Pathways (Poster 9)

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

Abstract

Summary
The pre-kindergarten through graduate school university system structure in Maryland (P-20) provides strategic infrastructure to work with state policy makers and directly impact teacher preparation programs. In 2018, the state identified the need to prepare more computing educators, and P-20 obtained policy and funding to create three new computing education teacher preparation pathways, which this study investigates.


Objectives and Significance
P-20 councils and collaborations provided a means to examine articulation and teacher preparation across education levels (Smith, 2021). This entity oversees the continuity of education experiences and work with education stakeholders is often complicated by governance, authority, and accountability variations within and between each level (Garvin et al., 2019). However, having a P-20 office situated in the university system enables a state to swiftly provide opportunities for Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs) to create teacher preparation pathways.
Maryland’s IHEs struggled to create computing education majors to prepare computer science (CS) teachers (Garvin, et al., 2021). In 2018, Maryland passed a computing education state law, Securing the Future: Computer Science Education for All, establishing the Maryland Center for Computing Education (MCCE) in the P-20 office (MD Code, Education, § 4-111.4; MD Code, Education, § 12-118). This study examines how three IHEs effectively leveraged this state policy and funding for organizational change to create innovative computing education pathways.


Theoretical Framework
The creation of new pathways is typically completed with in-kind time and expertise of current faculty. This fiscal model includes projected revenue from student enrollment. The urgency for more CS teachers in the state prompted a different targeted approach. Kotter’s change model has eight distinct stages and provides a framework to examine how these IHEs were able to accelerate organizational change in response to the state computing education policy (Kezar, 2011; Kotter, 1996). This model has been used in a wide variety of organizations including businesses, medical, government agencies, and IHEs (Kang, et al., 2022).


Data and Methods
Three IHEs received grants to create teacher computing education pathways. Each approached the process in a different and innovative way. The first IHE, “Flag,” is the flagship institution for the state system. The second IHE, “TeachU,” was originally founded to train teachers. The final IHE is referred to as AM. Programs created are listed in Table 1.

Data included grant applications, budgets, reports, and interviews with the principal investigators. Triangulation between the variety of data sources strengthened the internal validity (Merriam, 2009). Data analysis consisted of a constant comparative approach to determine grant implementations for each of the eight stages of Kotter’s change model (Strauss & Corbin, 1994).


Results
The P-20 office provided the strategic location for MCCE to leverage this state policy and provide the resources for three state IHEs. The sense of urgency stemmed from the fact that in the 2015-2016 academic year, 5,450 individuals graduated with a computer science degree in Maryland and only one new CS teacher. Each IHE interpreted the call to action differently and created innovative computing education teacher preparation pathways.

Authors

• Megean Garvin, University System of Maryland

• Karen Feagin, University System of Maryland

• Dewayne Morgan, University System of Maryland

• Quiana Bannerman, University System of Maryland