Professional Development in Computational Thinking: A Systematic Literature Review

IF 3.2 3区 工程技术 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Alejandro Espinal, Camilo Vieira, Alejandra J. Magana
{"title":"Professional Development in Computational Thinking: A Systematic Literature Review","authors":"Alejandro Espinal, Camilo Vieira, Alejandra J. Magana","doi":"10.1145/3648477","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This paper presents a systematic literature review of professional development programs in Computational Thinking. Computational thinking (CT) has emerged as an essential set of skills that everyone should develop to participate in a global society. However, there were no pre-service or in-service teacher programs to integrate CT into the K-12 classrooms until very recently. Thus, it is important to identify how educators and researchers address the challenges to prepare the next generation of students and what gaps persist in the current literature. We review existing work in this field from two perspectives: First, we analyze the learning outcomes, assessment methods, pedagogical approaches, and pedagogical tools used in the Professional Development programs in CT. Second, we examine how these programs assess the teachers’ knowledge and skills as outcomes. We used the technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) framework to characterize existing literature and identify possible gaps in the preparation of pre-service and in-service teachers in CT. Our results suggest that: (1) existing evidence is limited to developed countries; (2) many studies are only focusing on teachers understanding the concepts but do not explore how the participants evaluate or create learning activities; (3) no studies look into classroom observations as part of the program, which limits our understanding to how these programs work; and (4) most programs use block-based programming languages as the tool to develop student computational thinking. While block-based programming languages are used for introductory training programs, students are often expected to transfer their learning to more professional programming languages.</p>","PeriodicalId":48764,"journal":{"name":"ACM Transactions on Computing Education","volume":"2013 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACM Transactions on Computing Education","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3648477","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper presents a systematic literature review of professional development programs in Computational Thinking. Computational thinking (CT) has emerged as an essential set of skills that everyone should develop to participate in a global society. However, there were no pre-service or in-service teacher programs to integrate CT into the K-12 classrooms until very recently. Thus, it is important to identify how educators and researchers address the challenges to prepare the next generation of students and what gaps persist in the current literature. We review existing work in this field from two perspectives: First, we analyze the learning outcomes, assessment methods, pedagogical approaches, and pedagogical tools used in the Professional Development programs in CT. Second, we examine how these programs assess the teachers’ knowledge and skills as outcomes. We used the technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) framework to characterize existing literature and identify possible gaps in the preparation of pre-service and in-service teachers in CT. Our results suggest that: (1) existing evidence is limited to developed countries; (2) many studies are only focusing on teachers understanding the concepts but do not explore how the participants evaluate or create learning activities; (3) no studies look into classroom observations as part of the program, which limits our understanding to how these programs work; and (4) most programs use block-based programming languages as the tool to develop student computational thinking. While block-based programming languages are used for introductory training programs, students are often expected to transfer their learning to more professional programming languages.

计算思维的专业发展:系统文献综述
本文对计算思维专业发展项目进行了系统的文献综述。计算思维(Computational Thinking,CT)已成为每个人参与全球社会所应掌握的一套基本技能。然而,直到最近才有职前或在职教师计划将计算思维融入 K-12 课堂。因此,确定教育工作者和研究人员如何应对挑战,为下一代学生做好准备,以及目前的文献中还存在哪些差距,是非常重要的。我们从两个方面回顾了这一领域的现有工作:首先,我们分析了 CT 职业发展项目中使用的学习成果、评估方法、教学方法和教学工具。其次,我们研究了这些项目如何评估教师的知识和技能成果。我们使用技术教学和内容知识(TPACK)框架来描述现有文献,并找出 CT 州职前和在职教师准备工作中可能存在的差距。我们的研究结果表明(1) 现有证据仅限于发达国家;(2) 许多研究只关注教师对概念的理解,但没有探讨参与者如何评价或创建学习活动;(3) 没有研究将课堂观察作为项目的一部分,这限制了我们对这些项目如何运作的理解;(4) 大多数项目使用基于块的编程语言作为开发学生计算思维的工具。虽然基于块的编程语言被用于入门培训课程,但学生往往被期望将所学知识迁移到更专业的编程语言中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
ACM Transactions on Computing Education
ACM Transactions on Computing Education EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
16.70%
发文量
66
期刊介绍: ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE) (formerly named JERIC, Journal on Educational Resources in Computing) covers diverse aspects of computing education: traditional computer science, computer engineering, information technology, and informatics; emerging aspects of computing; and applications of computing to other disciplines. The common characteristics shared by these papers are a scholarly approach to teaching and learning, a broad appeal to educational practitioners, and a clear connection to student learning.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信