Piloting Makes Perfect: Iterating and Innovating Toward a Computational Thinking–Integrated Elementary Education Model

• In Event: Dynamics of Computational Thinking: Theoretical and Practical Debates in Teacher Training

Abstract

Motivation
In the spring of 2019, leaders at an innovative, national graduate school of education began redesigning their Masters of Arts in Teaching (MAT) curriculum. Computational thinking (CT) will act as a crucial throughline for the elementary MAT curriculum as a means to support interdisciplinary problem-solving and the intentional use of technology. This paper outlines the institution’s approach to CT integration and summarizes the learnings from the first two pilot professional learning cycles. Finally, the paper will lay out the implications of these early learnings on future PL cycles and the full curriculum integration of CT.

Approach
Two iterations of online professional learning (PL) coursework were designed and implemented in the fall of 2019 and spring of 2020. The goal of the iterative approach was to learn more about how teachers integrate CT while building investment and support from the institution's elementary faculty. While both iterations were designed to mirror the institution’s learn-practice-perform approach to teacher education, changes were made between iterations. Based on teachers’ planning in the first iteration, the Exist, Enhance, and Extend framework (Waterman, Goldsmith, and Pasquale, 2019) was adapted for the second iteration to provide greater structure for how teachers integrated CT. The framework provided multiple starting points for teachers’ thinking about CT based on their previous experiences and comfort level with CT. The framework also provided a clear scaffolding structure for how to integrate CT into the elementary MAT coursework.

Data
Teachers participating in the professional learning courses responded to pre- and post-surveys that measured their content knowledge and perceptions of CT. Content knowledge was measured via teachers identifying and explaining the extent to which CT was being used in elementary education vignettes. Additionally, teachers submitted at least one CT-integrated lesson plan using a provided lesson planning template. Finally, teachers participated in written and video reflections throughout the courses.

Findings
Teachers demonstrated increased levels of confidence in their abilities to identify and integrate CT into their instruction. Teachers also demonstrated increased familiarity with the CT practices, however their understanding was mostly superficial. While teachers were typically able to identify the practices in teaching scenarios, their explanations of how the practices were being used were limited. Superficial understanding of the practices was also evident in teachers’ lesson planning, where teachers could identify the practice(s) they wanted to integrate but often did not plan beyond high-level discussions of the practices with their students. Finally, while several teachers were able to differentiate CT from technology, other teachers indicated that technology was necessary for CT to be integrated authentically.

Implications
Based on the learnings from the first two cycles of the PL coursework, two additional iterations are being planned to continue to refine the model for how CT will be integrated into Relay’s elementary MAT curriculum. The additional iterations will focus on how teachers choose which CT practices to integrate, how they consider digital literacy when using technology, and how teachers develop student work analysis techniques using rubrics for CT.

Authors

• Raja Ridgway, Relay Graduate School of Education

• Isabel Linacre, Teachers College, Columbia University

• Douglas Ready, Teachers College, Columbia University