Advertisement

Self-Efficacy to Teach Coding in K-12 Education

  • Zafer Kadirhan
  • Abdülmenaf Gül
  • Ali Battal
Chapter

Abstract

There has been a growing interest to integrate “coding education” into K-12 curriculum in recent years. Teachers play a major role in this integration process, and in order for it to be successful, they should have strong sense of efficacy. Hence, the primary purpose of this chapter was to examine the self-efficacy skills that teachers should possess for effective coding education. In addition, teachers’ opinions about the benefits and potential barriers of coding education were investigated. Convergent parallel mixed-method design was employed to address research questions. Participants of the study consisted of two independent groups of samples with 15 and 272 participants, respectively. Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected concurrently through a series of semi-structured interviews and the application of an online survey form. Results revealed six main self-efficacy skills themes: content knowledge, personal characteristics, motivating students, pedagogical knowledge, classroom management, and material development. Furthermore, findings suggested that the most significant challenges experienced during coding education were infrastructure-related problems, lack of resources, and inadequate teacher skills. The present findings have important implications for researchers, practitioners, and policy makers to deliver effective and efficient coding education.

Keywords

Coding education Teacher self-efficacy Computational thinking Challenges of coding education 

References

  1. Akpinar, Y., & Altun, A. (2014). Bilgi Toplumu Okullarında Programlama Eğitimi Gereksinimi. Elementary Education Online, 13(1), 1–4.Google Scholar
  2. Askar, P., & Davenport, D. (2009). An investigation of factors related to self-efficacy for JAVA programming among engineering students. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 8(1), 26–32.Google Scholar
  3. Atmatzidou, S., & Demetriadis, S. (2016). Advancing students’ computational thinking skills through educational robotics: A study on age and gender relevant differences. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75, 661–670. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.robot.2015.10.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Balanskat, A., & Engelhardt, K. (2015). Computing our future. Brussels, Belgium: European Schoolnet. Retrieved from http://www.eun.org/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=3596b121-941c-4296-a760-0f4e4795d6fa&groupId=43887Google Scholar
  5. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
  6. Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307–337). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  7. Barr, V., & Stephenson, C. (2011). Bringing computational thinking to K-12: What is involved and what is the role of the computer science education community? ACM Inroads, 2(1), 48. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1145/1929887.1929905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bers, M. U., Flannery, L., Kazakoff, E. R., & Sullivan, A. (2014). Computational thinking and tinkering: Exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum. Computers and Education, 72, 145–157. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.10.020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bower, M., & Falkner, K. (2015). Computational thinking, the notional machine, pre-service teachers, and research opportunities. In Proceedings of the 17th Australasian Computing Education Conference (ACE 2015) (pp. 37–46). Sydney, Australia. Retrieved from http://crpit.com/confpapers/CRPITV160Bower.pdf
  10. Brown, N. C. C., Sentance, S., Crick, T., & Humphreys, S. (2013). Restart: The resurgence of computer science in UK schools. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 1(1), 1–22. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1145/0000000.0000000Google Scholar
  11. Buss, A., & Gamboa, R. (2017). Teacher transformations in developing computational thinking: Gaming and robotics use in after-school settings. In P. J. Rich & C. B. Hodges (Eds.), Emerging research, practice, and policy on computational thinking (pp. 189–203). Cham, Switzeland: Springer. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52691-1_12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Calao, L. A., Moreno-León, J., Correa, H. E., & Robles, G. (2015). Design for teaching and learning in a networked world. In Developing mathematical thinking with Scratch an experiment with 6th grade students (Vol. 9307, pp. 17–27). Springer. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24258-3_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chan, D. W. (2005). Teacher self-efficacy research and teacher education. Educational Research Journal, 20(2).Google Scholar
  14. Code.org. (2016). Teach with Code Studio. Retrieved May 1, 2017, from https://studio.code.org/courses?view=teacher
  15. Code.org. (2017). Promote Computer Science. Retrieved September 1, 2017, from https://code.org/promote
  16. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  17. Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2002). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 209–240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. D’Alba, A., & Huett, K. C. (2017). Learning computational skills in uCode@UWG: Challenges and recommendations. In P. J. Rich & C. B. Hodges (Eds.), Emerging research, practice, and policy on computational thinking (pp. 3–20). Cham, Switzeland: Springer. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52691-1_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dejarnette, N. K. (2012). America’s children: Providing early exposure to STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, & Math) initiatives. Education, 133(1), 77–84.Google Scholar
  20. Deschryver, M. D., & Yadav, A. (2015). Creative and computational thinking in the context of new literacies: Working with teachers to scaffold complex technology-mediated approaches to teaching and learning. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 23(3), 411–431.Google Scholar
  21. Duncan, C., Bell, T., & Tanimoto, S. (2014). Should your 8-year-old learn coding? Proceedings of the 9th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education on – WiPSCE ’14, pp. 60–69. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1145/2670757.2670774
  22. Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25–39. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  24. Gal-Ezer, J., & Stephenson, C. (2014). A tale of two countries. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 14(2). Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1145/2602483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ghaith, G., & Yaghi, H. (1997). Relationships among experience, teacher efficacy, and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13(4), 451–458. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(96)00045-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Girvan, C., Tangney, B., & Savage, T. (2013). SLurtles: Supporting constructionist learning in second life. Computers & Education, 61(1), 115–132. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.08.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Google. (2016). Computational thinking for educators. Retrieved from https://computationalthinkingcourse.withgoogle.com
  28. Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255–274. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737011003255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K-12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12463051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Howland, K., & Good, J. (2015). Learning to communicate computationally with flip: A bi-modal programming language for game creation. Computers & Education, 80, 224–240. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Qualitative Methodology, 24(4), 602–611. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.2307/2392366Google Scholar
  32. Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033007014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kalelioǧlu, F., & Gülbahar, Y. (2014). The effects of teaching programming via Scratch on problem solving skills: A discussion from learners’ perspective. Informatics in Education, 13(1), 33–50.Google Scholar
  34. Koh, K. H. K., Repenning, A., Nickerson, H., Endo, Y., & Motter, P. (2013). Will it stick?: Exploring the sustainability of computational thinking education through game design. In SIGCSE 2013 (p. 597). Denver, CO. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1145/2445196.2445372
  35. Kordaki, M. (2013). High school computing teachers’ beliefs and practices: A case study. Computers & Education, 68, 141–152. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.04.020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lee, I., Martin, F., & Apone, K. (2014). Integrating computational thinking across the K-8 curriculum. ACM Inroads, 5(4), 64–71. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1145/2684721.2684736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lee, M. (2017). Computational thinking: Efforts in Korea. In P. J. Rich & C. B. Hodges (Eds.), Emerging research, practice, and policy on computational thinking, practice, and policy on computational thinking (pp. 363–366). Cham, Switzeland: Springer. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52691-1_22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lu, J. J., & Fletcher, G. H. L. (2009). Thinking about computational thinking. In SIGCSE 2009 (pp. 260–264). Chattanooga, TN. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1145/1539024.1508959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lye, S. Y., & Koh, J. H. L. (2014). Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through programming: What is next for K-12? Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 51–61. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Menekse, M. (2015). Computer science teacher professional development in the United States: A review of studies published between 2004 and 2014. Computer Science Education, 25(4), 325–350. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2015.1111645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Millî Eğitim Bakanliği. (2016). Bilgisayar bilimi dersi öğretim programı.Google Scholar
  42. Millî Eğitim Bakanliği. (2017). Bilisim teknolojileri ve yazilim dersi ogretim programi. Retrieved from http://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/Dosyalar/2017717142646998-14BİLİŞİMTEKNOLOJİLERİ 5-6.pdf
  43. Moreno-León, J., Robles, G., & Román-González, M. (2015). Dr. Scratch: Automatic analysis of Scratch projects to assess and foster computational thinking. RED. Revista de Educación a Distancia, 15(46), 1–23. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.6018/red/46/10Google Scholar
  44. Mueller, J., Beckett, D., Hennessey, E., & Shodiev, H. (2017). Assessing computational thinking across the curriculum. In P. J. Rich & C. B. Hodges (Eds.), Emerging research, practice, and policy on computational thinking (pp. 251–267). Cham, Switzeland: Springer. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52691-1_16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nickerson, H., Brand, C., & Repenning, A. (2015). Grounding computational thinking skill acquisition through contextualized instruction. In ICER 2015 (pp. 207–216). Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1145/2787622.2787720
  46. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  47. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 2: Do they really think differently? On the Horizon, 9(6), 1–6. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Prieto-Rodriguez, E., & Berretta, R. (2014). Digtial technology teachers’ perceptions of Computer Science: It is no all about programming. In IEEE 2014 (pp. 1–5). Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2014.7044134
  49. Repenning, A., Grover, R., Gutierrez, K., Repenning, N., Webb, D. C., Koh, K. H., et al. (2015). Scalable game design. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 15(2), 1–31. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1145/2700517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Resnick, M. (2012). Reviving Papert’ s dream. Educational Technology, 52(4), 42–46.Google Scholar
  51. Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Hernández, A. M., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., et al. (2009). Scratch: Programming for everyone. Communications of the ACM, 52, 60–67. Retrieved from http://web.media.mit.edu/~mres/scratch/scratch-cacm.pdfCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Resnick, M., Maloney, J., Monroy-Hernández, A., Rusk, N., Eastmond, E., Brennan, K., et al. (2009). Scratch: Programming for all. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 60–67. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1145/1592761.1592779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sanford, J. F., & Naidu, J. T. (2017). Mathematical modeling and computational thinking. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 10(2), 159–168.Google Scholar
  54. Schulte, C., Hornung, M., Sentence, S., Dagiene, V., Jevsikova, T., Thota, N., et al. (2012). Computer science at school/CS teacher education. In Koli Calling 2012 (pp. 29–38). Tahko, Finland. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1145/2401796.2401800
  55. Stephenson, C., Gal-ezer, J., Haberman, B., Verno, A., & Cutler, R. (2005). The new educational imperative: Improving high school computer science education. New York: CSTA.Google Scholar
  56. Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  57. The Royal Society. (2012). Shut down or restart? The way forward for computing in. London: UK Schools. Retrieved from https://royalsociety.org/~/media/education/computing-in-schools/2012-01-12-computing-in-schools.pdfGoogle Scholar
  58. Toikkanen, T., & Leinonen, T. (2017). The code ABC MOOC: Experiences from a coding and computational thinking MOOC for Finnish primary school teachers. In P. J. Rich & C. B. Hodges (Eds.), Emerging research, practice, and policy on computational thinking (pp. 239–248). Cham, Switzeland: Springer. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52691-1_15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ucgul, M., & Cagiltay, K. (2014). Design and development issues for educational robotics training camps. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 24(2), 203–222. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-013-9253-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Yadav, A., Gretter, S., Good, J., & McLean, T. (2017). Computational thinking in teacher education. In P. J. Rich & C. B. Hodges (Eds.), Emerging research, practice, and policy on computational thinking (pp. 205–220). Cham, Switzeland: Springer. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52691-1_13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Yadav, A., Gretter, S., Hambrusch, S., & Sands, P. (2017). Expanding computer science education in schools: Understanding teacher experiences and challenges. Computer Science Education, 26(4), 235–254. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2016.1257418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Yadav, A., Mayfield, C., Zhou, N., Hambrusch, S., & Korb, J. T. (2014). Computational thinking in elementary and secondary teacher education. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 14(1), 1–16. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1145/2576872CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zafer Kadirhan
    • 1
  • Abdülmenaf Gül
    • 2
  • Ali Battal
    • 1
  1. 1.Middle East Technical UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  2. 2.Hakkari UniversityHakkariTurkey

Personalised recommendations