This article examines teacher preparation and teacher change in engineering and computer science education. We examined culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy (CRTSE), culturally responsive teaching outcome expectancy (CRTOE) beliefs, and attitudes toward computational thinking (CT) as teachers participated in one of three treatment groups: robotics only, game design only, or blended robotics/game design. Descriptive data revealed that CRTSE gain scores were higher in the robotics only and blended contexts than in the game design only context. However, CRTOE beliefs were consistent across all treatment groups. In regard to CT attitudes, teachers’ gain scores were higher in the game design only and blended contexts than in the robotics only context. In addition, there were differences by treatment group related to STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) practices, while cultural artifacts were evident in each learning environment. The results of this study reveal some variability by treatment type and inform future research on equitable practices in engineering and computer science education.
BanduraA. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
2.
BanduraA. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
3.
BanduraA. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.
4.
BarrD.HarrisonJ.ConeryL. (2011). Computational thinking: A digital age. Learning & Leading with Technology, 38(6), 20-23.
5.
BerlandM.WilenskyU. (2015). Comparing virtual and physical robotics environments for supporting complex systems and computational thinking. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24, 628-647.
6.
BishopA. J. (1988). Mathematics education and its cultural context. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 19(2), 179-191. doi:10.1007/BF00751231
7.
BladE. (2015). Poverty data signal urgency for schools: Poor child now make up a majority. Education Week, 34(19), 1, 16.
8.
BlanchardS.JudyJ.MullerC.CrawfordR. H.PetrosinoA. J. (2015). Beyond blackboards: Engaging underserved middle school students in engineering. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 5(1), 1-14.
9.
BogdanR.BiklenS. K. (2006). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
10.
Brown-JeffyS.CooperJ. E. (2011). Toward a conceptual framework of culturally relevant pedagogy: An overview of the conceptual and theoretical literature. Teacher Education Quarterly, 38(1), 65-84.
CaronD. (2010). Competitive robotics brings out the best in students. Tech Directions, 69(6), 21-23.
13.
CoxonS. (2012). The malleability of spatial ability under treatment of a FIRST LEGO League-Based robotics simulation. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 35(3), 291-316. doi:10.1177/0162353212451788
14.
CreswellJ. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
15.
EricksonF.MohattG. (1982). Cultural organization of participant structures in two classrooms of Indian students. In SpindlerG. D. (Ed.), Doing the ethnography of schooling: Educational anthropology in action (pp. 132-174). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
16.
FalloonG. (2016). An analysis of young students’ thinking when completing basic coding tasks using Scratch Jnr. on the iPad. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32, 576-593.
17.
GayG. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, practice and research (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
18.
GitomerD. (2014). Development of the Dimensions of Success (DoS) Observation Tool for the Out of School Time STEM Field: Refinement, Field-testing and Establishment of Psychometric Properties. Retrieved from http://www.pearweb.org/tools/dos.html
19.
HattieJ. A. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses related to achievement. New York, NY: Routledge.
20.
HughesR. M.NzekweB.MolyneauxK. J. (2013). The single sex debate for girls in science: A comparison between two informal science programs on middle school students’ STEM identity formation. Research in Science Education, 43(5), 1979-2007.
IoannidouA.BennettV.RepenningA.KohK. H.BasawapatnaA. (2011, April). Computational thinking patterns. Paper presented at the 2011 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), Division C, New Orleans, LA.
23.
JensonJ.DroumevaM. (2016). Exploring media literacy and computational thinking: A game maker curriculum study. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 14(2), 111-121.
24.
JuliàC.AntolíJ. Ò. (2016). Spatial ability learning through educational robotics. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26(2), 185-203. doi:10.1007/s10798-015-9307-2
25.
KarpT.MaloneyP. (2013). Exciting young students in grades K-8 about STEM through an afterschool robotics challenge. American Journal of Engineering Education, 4(1), 39-54.
26.
Ladson-BillingsG. (2009). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley.
27.
LeonardJ. (2008). Culturally specific pedagogy in the mathematics classroom: Strategies for teachers and students. New York, NY: Routledge.
28.
LeonardJ.Barnes-JohnsonJ.DantleyS. J.KimberC. T. (2011). Teaching science inquiry in urban contexts: The role of elementary preservice teachers’ beliefs. The Urban Review, 43(1), 124-150.
29.
LeonardJ.BussA.GamboaR.MitchellM.FasholaO. S.HubertT.. . . AlmughyirahS. M. (2016). Using robotics and game design to enhance children’s STEM attitudes and computational thinking skills. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 28(6), 860-876. doi:10.1007/s10956-016-9628-2
30.
LeonardJ.MartinD. B. (Eds.). (2013). The brilliance of Black children in mathematics: Beyond the numbers and toward new discourse. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
31.
LeonardJ.NappC.AdelekeS. (2009). The complexities of culturally relevant pedagogy: A case study of two mathematics teachers and their ESOL students. High School Journal, 93(1), 3-22.
32.
LipkaJ.HoganM. P.WebsterJ. P.YanezE.AdamsB.ClarkS.LacyD. (2005). Math in a cultural context: Two case studies of a successful culturally based math project. Anthropology in Education Quarterly, 36(4), 367-385.
33.
Moreno-LeónJ.RoblesG.Román-GonzálezM. (2016). Code to learn: Where does it belong in the K-12 curriculum?Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 15, 283-303. Retrieved from http://www.informingscience.org/Publications/3521
34.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas (Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards, Board on Science Education, Division of Behavior and Social Sciences and Education). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
35.
National Science Foundation. (2010). Preparing the next generation of STEM innovators: Identifying and developing our nation’s human capital. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2010/nsb1033.pdf
36.
NewtonK. J.LeonardJ.EvansB. R.EastburnJ. A. (2012). Preservice elementary teachers’ mathematics content knowledge and teacher efficacy. School Science & Mathematics, 112(5), 289-299.
37.
Next Generation Science Standards Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
38.
NietoS. (2002). Language, culture, and teaching: Critical perspectives for a new century. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
39.
NugentG.BarkerB.GrandgenettN.AdamchukV. (2010). Impact of robotics on geospatial technology interventions on youth STEM learning and attitudes. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(4), 391-408.
40.
PajaresF. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Education Research, 66, 533-578.
41.
PapazianA. E.NoamG. G.ShahA. M.Rufo-McCormickC. (2013). The quest for quality in afterschool science: The development and application of a new tool. Afterschool Matters, 18, 17-24.
42.
PapertS. (1993). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Basic Books.
43.
PaznokasL. S. (2003). Teaching mathematics through cultural quilting. Teaching Children Mathematics, 9(5), 250-256.
44.
RepenningA. (2013). Making programming accessible and exciting. IEEE Computer Society, 46(6), 78-81. doi:10.1109/MC.2013.214
45.
RepenningA.WebbD.IoannidouA. (2010, March). Scalable game design and the development of a checklist for getting computational thinking into public schools. In LewandowskiG.WolfmanS. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 41st ACM Technical Sympoisum on Computer Science Education, Milwaukee, WI, USA (pp. 265-269). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
46.
RepenningA.WebbD.KohK. H.NickersonH.MillerS. B.BrandC.. . . RepenningN. (2015). Scalable game design: A strategy to bring systematic computer science education to schools through game design and simulation creation. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 15(2), 11.1-11.34.
47.
ReynoldsR. (2016). Defining, designing for, and measuring “social constructivist digital literacy” development in learners: A proposed framework. Educational Technology Research & Development, 1-28, 64(4), 735-762.
48.
ShahA. M.WylieC. E.GitomerD.NoamG. (2014). Development of the Dimensions of Success (DoS) observation tool for the out of school time STEM field: Refinement, field-testing and establishment of psychometric properties. Retrieved from http://www.pearweb.org/research/pdfs/DoSTechReport_092314_final.pdf
49.
ShahN.LewisC. M.CairesR.KhanN.QureshiA.EhsanipourD.GuptaN. (2013, March). Building equitable computer science classrooms: Elements of a teaching approach. In CampT.TymannP. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Denver, CO, USA (pp. 263-268). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
50.
SiwatuK. O. (2007). Preservice teachers’ culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy and outcome expectancy beliefs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(7), 1086-1101.
51.
SullivanF. R.HeffernanJ. (2016). Robotics construction kits as computational manipulatives for learning in the STEM disciplines. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48(2), 105-128.
52.
TillmanL. C. (2002). Culturally sensitive research approaches: An African-American perspective. Educational Researcher, 31(9), 3-12.
53.
VygotskyL. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
54.
WebbD.RepenningA.KohK. (2012, March). Toward an emergent theory of broadening participation in computer science education. In KingL. S.MusicantD. R. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Raleigh, NC, USA (pp. 173-178). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
55.
WingJ. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33-35.
56.
WingJ. M. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 366(1881), 3717-3725. Retrieved from http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/366/1881/3717.short
57.
YadavA.MayfieldC.ZhouN.HambruschS.KorbJ. T. (2014). Computational thinking in elementary and secondary teacher education. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 14(1), 5:1-5:16. doi:10.1145/2576872
58.
YadavA.ZhouN.MayfieldC.HambruschS.KorbJ. T. (2011, March). Introducing computational thinking in education courses. In CortinaT. J.WalkerE. L. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Dallas, TX, USA (pp. 465-470). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
