Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Computer Programming Effects in Elementary: Perceptions and Career Aspirations in STEM

  • Original research
  • Published:
Technology, Knowledge and Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The development of elementary-aged students’ STEM and computer science (CS) literacy is critical in this evolving technological landscape, thus, promoting success for college, career, and STEM/CS professional paths. Research has suggested that elementary-aged students need developmentally appropriate STEM integrated opportunities in the classroom; however, little is known about the potential impact of CS programming and how these opportunities engender positive perceptions, foster confidence, and promote perseverance to nurture students’ early career aspirations related to STEM/CS. The main purpose of this mixed-method study was to examine elementary-aged students’ (N = 132) perceptions of STEM, career choices, and effects from pre- to post-test intervention of CS lessons (N = 183) over a three-month period. Findings included positive and significant changes from students’ pre- to post-tests as well as augmented themes from 52 student interviews to represent increased enjoyment of CS lessons, early exposure, and its benefits for learning to future careers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aldoplhe, F. S. G., Fraser, B. J., & Aldigre, J. M. (2003). A cross national study of learning environment and attitudes among junior secondary science students in Australia and Indonesia. Paper presented at the Third International Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education Conference, East London, South Africa.

  • Anderman, E. R., & Young, A. J. (1994). Motivation and strategy use in science: Individual differences and classroom effects. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 811–831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, M. (2005). Thinking about women: A quarter century’s view. Gender and Society, 19(4), 437–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archer, L., Osborne, J., DeWitt, J., Dillon, J., Wong, B., & Willis, B. (2013). ASPIRES Young peoples’ science and career aspirations, age 10–14. London: Department of Ducation and Professional Studies. King’s College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Auger, R. W., & Blackhurst, A. E. (2005). The development of elementary-aged children’s aspirations and expectations. American School Counselor Association Journal, 8(4), 322–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Augustine, N. R. (2005). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ausubel, D. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. New York: Grune & Stratton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28, 117–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A., Barbarenelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (2001). Self-efficacy beliefs as shapers of children’s aspirations and career trajectories. Child Development, 72(9), 187–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barr, V., & Stephenson, C. (2011). Bringing computational thinking to K-12: What is involved and what is the role of the computer science community? ACM Inroads, 2(1), 48–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barshay, J. (2011). ‘Blended learning’ for the little ones. Education Week, 31(9), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, T., Witten, I., & Fellows, M. (2011). Computer science unplugged. Retrieved from http://csunplugged.org/books/. Accessed 15 Aug 2015.

  • Bers, M. U. (2010). The TangibleK robotics program: Applied computational thinking for young children. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 12(2). Retrieved from http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v12n2/bers.html.

  • Bers, M., & Horn, M. (2010). Tangible programming in early childhood: Revisiting developmental assumptions through new technologies. In I. Berson & M. Berson (Eds.), High-tech tots: Childhood in a digital world (pp. 49–70). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyles, S. R. (2011). Using technology in the classroom. Science Scope, 34(9), 39–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, G., Denes, R., & Morrison, C. (Eds.). (2000). Access denied. Race, ethnicity, and the scientific enterprise. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavallo, A. M. L. (1996). Meaningful learning reasoning ability and student’s understanding and problem of genetics topics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 625–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavallo, A. M. L., Rozman, M., & Potter, W. H. (2004). Gender differences in learning Constructs, shifts in learning constructs, and their relationship to course achievement in a structured inquiry, yearlong collage physic course for life science majors. School Science and Mathematics, 104(6), 288–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Center of Digital Education. (2013). Center for digital education digital content and curriculum comprehensive report. Retrieved September 1, 2016 from http://www.centerdigitaled.com/awards/digital-content-curriculum/2013awards.html.

  • Chen, X. (2009). Students who study science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) in postsecondary education (NCES 2009-161). Washington DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cinamon, R. G., & Dan, O. (2010). Parental attitudes toward preschoolers’ career education: A mixed-method study. Journal of Career Development, 37, 519–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clements, D. H. (1987). Longitudinal study of the effects of logo programming on cognitive abilities and achievement. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 3, 73–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clements, D. H., Battista, M. T., & Sarama, J. (2001). Logo and geometry. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education Monograph Series, 10.

  • Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. (2007). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a Brighter economic future. Washington DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Correll, S. J. (2001). Gender and the career choice process: The role of biased self-Assessments. The American Journal of Sociology, 106(6), 1691–1730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • CSTA. (2011). Operational definition of computational thinking for K-12 education. Retrieved from http://www.csta.acm.org/Curriculum/sub/CompThinking.html. Accessed 1 July 2017.

  • DeJarnette, N. K. (2012). America’s children: Providing early exposure to STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) initiatives. Education, 133(1), 77–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeWitt, J., Archer, L., & Osborne, J. (2014). Science-related aspirations across the primary-secondary divide: Evidence from two surveys in England. International Journal of Science Education, 36(10), 1609–1629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiSessa, A. A. (2000). Changing minds: Computers, learning, and literacy. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A., Schweinggruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in Grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivation. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (5th ed., Vol. 3, pp. 1017–1095). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edmondson, K. M. (1989). The influence of students’ conceptions of scientific knowledge and their orientations to learning on their choices of learning strategy in a college introductory level biology course. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.

  • Elkind, D. (1982). Piagetian psychology and the practice of child psychiatry. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 21, 435–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fessakis, G., Gouli, E., & Mavroudi, E. (2013). Problem solving by 5-6 years old kindergarten children in a computer programming environment: A case study. Computers & Education, 63, 87–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ginzberg, E. (1952). Toward a theory of occupational choice. Occupations, 30, 491–494.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottfredson, L. (1981). Circumscription and compromise: A developmental theory of occupational aspirations [Monograph]. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28, 545–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gottfredson, L. S., & Lapan, R. T. (1997). Assessing gender-based circumscription of occupational aspirations. Journal of Career Assessment, 5(4), 419–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gottfried, A. E. (1990). Academic intrinsic motivation in young elementary school children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 525–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K-12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42, 38–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harackiewiez, J. M., Rozek, C. S., Hulleman, C. S., & Hyde, J. (2012). Helping parents to motivate adolescents in mathematics and science: An experimental test of utility-value intervention. Psychological Science, 23, 899–906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, C. J., & Rooks, D. L. (2010). Managing inquiry-based science: Challenges in enacting complex instruction in elementary and middle school classrooms. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21, 227–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, P. B., Cortina, T. J., Hazzan, O., & Wing, J. M. (2007). Computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 38th ACM SIGCSE technical symposium on computer science education (SIGCSE’07) (pp. 195–196). New York, NY: ACM Press.

  • Holland, J. L. (1985). Making vocational choices (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hong, S. (2010). The reciprocal relationship between parental involvement and Mathematics achievement: Autoregressive cross-lagged modeling. Journal of Experimental Education, 78, 419–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horn, M. S., Crouser, R. J., & Bers, M. U. (2011). Tangible interaction and learning: The case for hybrid approach. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 16(4), 379–389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horn, M. B., & Staker, H. (2011). The rise of K-12 blended learning. Innosight Institute. Retrieved September 1, 2016 from http://www.innosightinstitute.org/mediaroom/publications/education-publications.

  • Ing, M. (2014). Can parents influence children’s mathematics achievement and persistence in STEM careers? Journal of Career Development, 41(2), 87–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Society for Technology in Education and the Computer Science Teachers Association. (2011). Operational definition of computational thinking for K-12 Thinking operational-defintiion-flyer.pdf. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/docs/ct-documents/computational-thinking-operational-definition-flyer.pdf?sfvrsn=2. Accessed 1 July 2017.

  • International Society for Technology in Education and the Computer Science Teachers Association. (2017). Computational thinking teacher resources. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/docs/ct-documents/ct-teacher-resources_2ed-pdf.pdf?sfvrsn=2.

  • Israel, M., Pearson, J. N., Tapia, T., Wherfel, Q. M., & Reese, G. (2015). Supporting all learners in school wide computational thinking: A cross case qualitative analysis. Computers & Education, 82, 263–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jona, K., Wilensky, U., Trouille, L., Horn, M. S., Orton, K., Weintrop, D., & Beheshti, E. (2014). Embedding computational thinking in science, technology, engineering, and math (CT-STEM). Presented at the Future Directions in Computer Science Education Summit Meeting, Orlando, FL.

  • Kafai, Y. B., & Burke, Q. (2014). Connected code: Why children need to learn programming. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kazakoff, E., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2013). The effect of a classroom-based intensive robotics and Programming workshop on sequencing ability in early childhood. Early Childhood Education Journal, 41(4), 245–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuo, Y., Belland, B. R., Schroder, K. E., & Walker, A. E. (2014). K-12 teachers’ perceptions of and their satisfaction with interaction type in blended learning environments. Distance Education, 35(3), 360–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrenz, F. (1976). Student perception of the classroom learning environment in biology, chemistry and physics courses. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 13(4), 315–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2013). Is it STEM or” S & M” that we truly love? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(8), 1237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, I., Martin, F., Denner, J., Coulter, B., Allan, W., Erickson, J., et al. (2011). Computational thinking for youth in practice. ACM Inroads, 2, 32–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liao, Y.-K., & Bright, G. (1991). Effects of computer-assisted instruction and computer programming on cognitive outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 7(3), 251–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lou, S., Chen, N., Tsai, H., Tseng, K., & Shih, R. (2012). Using blended creative teaching: Improving a teacher education course on designing materials for young children. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(5), 776–792.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ma, X. (1999). Dropping out of advanced mathematics: The effects of parental involvement. Teachers College Record, 101, 60–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ma, X. (2001). Participation in advanced mathematics: Do expectation and influence of students, peers, teachers and matter? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26, 132–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magnuson, S. J., & Palincsar, A. S. (2005). Teaching to promote the development of scientific knowledge and reasoning about light at the elementary level. In M. S. Donovan & J. D. Bransford (Eds.), How students learn science in the classroom (pp. 53–106). Washington DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magnuson, C., & Starr, M. (2000). How early is too early to begin life career planning? The importance of the elementary school years. Journal of Career Development, 27(2), 89–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Middleton, E. B., & Loughead, T. A. (1993). Parental influence on career development: An integrative framework for adolescent career counseling. Journal of Career Development, 19, 161–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mioduser, D., Levy, S., & Talis, V. (2009). Episodes to scripts to rules: Concrete abstractions in kindergarten children’s explanations of a robot’s behaviors. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19(1), 15–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moomaw, S. (2012). STEM begins in the early years. School Science and Mathematics, 112(2), 57–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, C., & Beggs, J. (2003). Children’s perceptions of school science. School Science Review, 84, 109–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagy, G., Trautwein, U., Baumert, J., Koller, O., & Garrett, J. (2006). Gender and course-selection in upper secondary education: Effects of academic self-concept and intrinsic value. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12(4), 323–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Academy of Sciences. (2007). Beyond bias and barriers: Fulfilling the potential of women in academic science and engineering. Washington DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Academy of Sciences. (2010). Rising above the gathering storm, revisited: Rapidly approaching category (Vol. 5). Washington DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC). (2009). Engineering in K–12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newhouse, N. (1990). Implication of attitudes and behavior research for environmental Conservation. The Journal of Environmental Education, 22(1), 26–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oh, P. S., & Yager, R. E. (2004). Development of constructivist science classrooms and changes in student attitudes toward science learning. Science Education International, 15(2), 105–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oregon Department of Education. (2015). School and District Report Cards. Retrieved from https://www.ode.state.or.us/data/reportcard/reports.aspx. Accessed 1 July 2017.

  • Papanastasiou, C., & Papanastasiou, E. C. (2004). Major influences on attitudes toward science. Educational Research and Evaluation, 10(3), 239–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papanastasiou, E. C., & Zemblyas, M. (2002). The effects of attitudes on science achievement: A study conducted among high school students in Cyprus. International Review of Education, 48(6), 469–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pintrinch, P., & Schunk, D. (2002). Motivation in education. Upper Saddle River: Merrill Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Program for International Student Assessment. (2012). Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pisa/pisa2012/index.asp.

  • Puacharearn, P., & Fisher, D. (2004). The effectiveness of cooperative learning integrated with constructivist teaching on improving learning environments in Thai secondary school science classrooms. Bentley: Curtin University of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reigle-Crumb, C., Moore, C., & Ramos-Wada, A. (2010). Who wants to have a career in science or math? Exploring adolescents’ future aspirations by gender and race/ethnicity. Science Education, 95, 458–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Resnick, M. (2006). Computer as paintbrush: Technology, play, and creative society. In D. Singer, R. Golikoff, & K. Hirsh-Pasek (Eds.), Play = learning: How play motivates and enhances children’s cognitive and social-emotional growth. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reynard, R. (2003). Internet-based ESL for distance adult students—A framework for dynamic language learning. Canadian Modern Language Review, 60(2), 123–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riah, H. & Fraser, B. J. (1997). Chemistry learning environment in Brunei Darussalam’s secondary schools. In D.L. Fisher & T. Richards (Eds.), Science, Mathematics and Technology Education and National Development: Proceedings of the Vietnam Conference (pp. 108–120). Hanoi.

  • Roe, A. (1957). Early determinants of vocational choice. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 4, 212–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenshine, B. & Stevens, R. (1992). The use of scaffolds for teaching less structured academic tasks. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

  • Sanders, M. (2009, December/January). STEM, STEM education, STEMmania. The Technology Teacher, 20–26.

  • Seligman, L., & Weinstock, L. (1991). The career development of 10 year olds. Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 25(3), 172–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, R. & Oliver, J. (1990). A summary of major influences on attitude toward and achievement in science among adolescent students. Science Education, 74(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Splete, H., & Freeman-George, A. (1985). Family influences on the career development of young adults. Journal of Career Development, 12, 55–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, C. (1992). What makes Tony run? Schemas as motive reconsideration. In R. D’Andrade & C. Strauss (Eds.), Human motives and cultural models (pp. 191–224). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, C., & Quinn, N. (1997). A cognitive theory of cultural meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tai, R., Liu, C. Q., Maltese, A. V., & Fan, X. (2006). Planning early for careers in science. Science, 312, 1143–1144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tran, Y. (2014). Addressing reciprocity between families and schools: Why these bridges are instrumental for students’ academic success. Improving Schools Journal, 17(1), 18–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study. (2011). TIMSS international results in mathematics. Retrieved March 6, 2015 from http://timss.bc.edu/timss2011/downloads/T11_IR_M_Chapter1.pdf.

  • Trice, A. D., Hughes, M. A., Odom, C., Woods, K., & McClellan, N. C. (1995). The origins of children's career aspirations: IV. Testing hypotheses from four theories. Career Development Quarterly, 43, 307–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trice, A. D., & McClellan, N. (1993). Do children’s career aspirations predict adult occupations? An answer form a secondary analysis of longitudinal study. Psychological Reports, 72, 368–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trice, A. D., & Tillapaugh, P. (1991). Children’s estimates of their parents’ job satisfaction. Psychological Reports, 69, 63–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trusty, J. (1996). Relationship of parental involvement in teens’ career development to teens’ attitudes, perceptions, and behavior. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 30, 65–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tziner, A., Loberman, G., Dekel, Z., & Sharoni, G. (2012). The influence of parent off spring relationship on young people’s career preferences. Psicologia del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones, 28(2), 99–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wahyudi, W., & David, F. T. (2004). The status of science classroom learning environments in Indonesian lower secondary schools. Learning Environment Research, 7, 43–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Orton, K., Jona, K., Trouille, L., et al. (2016). Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(1), 127–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westermann, E. B. (2014). A half-flipped classroom or an alternative approach?: Primary sources and blended learning. Educational Research Quarterly, 38(2), 43–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilensky, U., Brady, C., & Horn, M. (2014). Fostering computational literacy in science classrooms. Communications of the ACM, 57(8), 17–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wing, J. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wingfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfz, U., Stone, M., Pearson, K., Pulimood, S. M., & Switzer, M. (2011). Computational thinking and expository writing in the middle school. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 11(2), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolters, C. A., Yu, S. L., & Pintrich, P. R. (1996). The relation between goal orientation and students’ motivational beliefs and self -regulated learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 8, 211–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, R. A., Valach, L., Paseluikho, M. A., Dover, C., Matthes, G. E., Paproski, D. L., et al. (1997). The joint action of parents and adolescents in conversation about career. Career Development Quarterly, 46, 72–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. George Fox University, 414 N. Meridian, Newberg, OR, 97132, USA

    Yune Tran

Authors
  1. Yune Tran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yune Tran.

Appendices

Appendix 1

1.1 Example Questions from Computational Test

Put these mixed-up instructions for baking a cake in order using only four steps. Write numbers 1–4 next to those steps.

  • Make a salad. ______

  • Pour batter into pan. ______

  • Eat half of the batter. ______

  • Mix ingredients in a bowl. ______

  • Drink some water. ______

  • Bake for 20 min. ______

  • Measure ingredients. ______

Emma is exercising before gym class. Emma does two push-ups. Emma repeats the first step three times, and touches her toes once after each repeat. How many push-ups did Emma do? ________

How many times did she touch her toes? __________

Circle the wrong steps in the sequence.

  • Wake up.

  • Get dressed and eat breakfast.

  • Drive to school

  • Put on your backpack for school.

  • Get in the car.

  • Walk into the classroom.

Appendix B

Example Items from Survey Instrument

1 = strongly disagree

2 = disagree

3 = neutral

4 = agree

5 = strongly agree

  • (Self-concept related to STEM)

  • I am good with technology.

  • I am good with science.

  • I am good with math.

  • I am good with engineering (design or inventions).

  • (Perceptions of learning STEM)

  • I learn things quickly in math lessons.

  • I learn things quickly in technology lessons.

  • I learn things quickly in science lessons.

  • I learn things quickly in engineering lessons (design or inventions).

  • (Learning about STEM for later)

  • Studying science is useful for getting a good job in the future.

  • Studying engineering (design or inventions) is useful for getting a good job in the future.

  • Studying science is useful for getting a good job in the future.

  • Studying technology is useful for getting a good job in the future.

  • Studying math is useful for getting a good job in the future.

  • (Parents’ attitudes about STEM)

  • My parents think it is important for me to learn about technology.

  • My parents think it is important for me to learn about engineering (design or inventions).

  • My parents think it is important for me to learn about science.

  • My parents think it is important for me to learn about math.

  • (Goals/aspirations in STEM)

  • I would like to study more about technology in the future.

  • I would like to study more about math in the future.

  • I would like to study more about engineering (design or inventions) in the future.

  • I would like to study more about science in the future.

  • (Future job-STEM related)

  • It is important for me to use technology in my future job.

  • It is important for me to use math in my future job.

  • It is important for me to use science in my future job.

  • It is important for me to use engineering (design or inventions) in my future job.

2.1 Please write down some answers to these questions

  • What kind of job do you want when you grow up?

  • What makes this job enjoyable to you?

2.2 Circle one

Are you a boy or girl?

BOY

GIRL

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tran, Y. Computer Programming Effects in Elementary: Perceptions and Career Aspirations in STEM. Tech Know Learn 23, 273–299 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9358-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-018-9358-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation