Search for: All records

Integrated computing curricula combine learning objectives in computing with those in another discipline, like literacy, math, or science, to give all students experience with computing, typically before they must decide whether to take standalone CS courses. One goal of integrated computing curricula is to provide an accessible path to an introductory computing course by introducing computing concepts and practices in required courses. This study analyzed integrated computing curricula to determine which CS practices and concepts are taught, how extensively the curricula are taught, and, by extension, how they might prepare students for later computing courses. The authors conducted a content analysis to examine primary and lower secondary (i.e., K-8) curricula that are taught in non-CS classrooms, have explicit CS learning objectives (i.e., CS+X), and that took 5+ hours to complete. Lesson plans, descriptions, and resources were scored based on frameworks developed from the K-12 CS Framework, including programming concepts, non-programming CS concepts, and CS practices. The results found that curricula most extensively taught introductory concepts and practices, such as sequences, and rarely taught more advanced content, such as conditionals. Students who engage with most of these curricula would have no experience working with fundamental concepts, like variables, operators, data collection or storage, or abstraction in the context of a program. While this focus might be appropriate for integrated curricula, it has implications for the prior knowledge that students should be expected to have when starting standalone computing courses. 

Understanding how human memory and learning works, the differences between beginners and experts, and practical steps developers can take to improve their learning, training, and recruitment. 

This paper describes the beginning of a design-based research project for integrating computing activities in preservice teacher programs throughout a middle and secondary education department. Computing integration activities use computing tools, like programming, to support learning in non-computing disciplines. The paper begins with the motivation for integrating computing that encouraged widespread buy-in, design goals, and design parameters. The primary motivating factor for this work was preparing teachers to use technology to support learning in their classrooms. Involving computing education faculty in the preparation enabled the activities to include computer science and spread computational literacy. The paper also describes the process and year-long timeline for designing and implementing the integrations, followed by the details of the computing integrated activities. Last, the paper describes preservice teachers’ reactions to computing integration, focusing on before-and-after perceptions and knowledge of computing. Preservice teachers perceptions and knowledge of computing evolved similarly to teachers who engage in different approaches to learning about integrated computing, such as in elective or educational technology courses, suggesting that this approach is effective for engaging all teachers in integrating computing. In particular, the common feature that ignited teachers’ excitement about integrating computing was offering new opportunities to improve student learning and providing engaging activities within their non-computing discipline. 

The subgoal learning framework has improved performance for novice programmers in higher education, but it has only started to be applied and studied in K-12 (primary/secondary). Programming education in K-12 is growing, and many international initiatives are attempting to increase participation, including curricular initiatives like Computer Science Principles and non-profit organizations like Code.org. Given that subgoal learning is designed to help students with no prior knowledge, we designed and implemented subgoals in the introduction to programming unit in Code.org's Computer Science Principles course. The redesigned unit includes subgoal-oriented instruction and subgoal-themed pre-written comments that students could add to their programming activities. To evaluate efficacy, we compared behaviors and performance of students who received the redesigned subgoal unit to those receiving the original unit. We found that students who learned with subgoals performed better on problem-solving questions but not knowledge-based questions and wrote more in open-ended response questions, including a practice Performance Task for the AP exam. Moreover, at least one-third of subgoal students continued to use the subgoal comments after the subgoal-oriented instruction had been faded, suggesting that they found them useful. Survey data from the teachers suggested that students who struggled with the concepts found the subgoals most useful. Implications for future designs are discussed.