Infusing computational thinking into STEM teaching: From professional development to classroom practice
Citation
Jocius, Robin; O’Byrne, W. Ian; Albert, Jennifer; Joshi, Deepti; Robinson, Richard; Andrews, Ashley. (2021) Infusing computational thinking into STEM teaching: From professional development to classroom practice. Educational Technology & Society, 24(4), 166–179.
Abstract
Despite increasing attention to the potential benefits of infusing computational thinking into content area classrooms, more research is needed to examine how teachers integrate disciplinary content and CT as part of their pedagogical practices. This study traces how middle and high school teachers (n = 24) drew on their existing knowledge and their experiences in a STEM professional development program to infuse CT into their teaching. Our work is grounded in theories of TPACK and TPACK-CT, which leverage teachers’ knowledge of technology for computational thinking (CT), CT as a disciplinary pedagogical practice, and STEM content knowledge. Findings identify three key pedagogical supports that teachers utilized and transformed as they taught CT-infused lessons (articulating a key purpose for CT infusion, scaffolding, and collaborative contexts), as well as barriers that caused teachers to adapt or abandon their lessons. Implications include suggestions for future research on CT infusion into secondary classrooms, as well as broader recommendations to support teachers in applying STEM professional development content to classroom practice.
Notes
This paper is early in the Infusing Computing arc — it documents what happened when teachers took PD learning back into their classrooms. The central question is one we kept returning to across multiple papers: knowledge gained in a workshop doesn’t automatically transfer to practice. There’s always a gap between what teachers learned and what they were able to actually do with their students, given the specific constraints of their content area, school culture, and student needs.
The TPACK-CT framework was useful here because it forced us to think about three distinct types of knowledge that have to come together: content knowledge, technology knowledge, and pedagogical knowledge — and the specific way those intersect for computational thinking. A math teacher infusing CT into algebra is doing something genuinely different from a science teacher infusing CT into lab design. The framework helps name that difference.
What struck me most in the data was how many teachers found creative ways to preserve the intent of a CT lesson even when they had to abandon the original plan. That kind of adaptive expertise is worth studying on its own terms.