Professional Development of Code and Robotics Teachers Through Small Private Online Course (SPOC): Teacher Centrality and Pedagogical Strategies for Developing Computational Thinking of Students
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online July, 2021
Professional Development of Code and Robotics Teachers Through Small Private Online Course (SPOC): Teacher Centrality and Pedagogical Strategies for Developing Computational Thinking of Students
This study explored (1) pedagogical strategies in Educational Coding and Robotics (ECR) learning which can develop computational thinking of students and (2) the degree of teacher centrality in the ECR classroom. In addition, we investigated (3) the added value of the Small Private Online Course (SPOC) to teacher professional development (TPD). We analyzed reflections of 80 in-service teachers on TPD through the SPOC (1,091 statements) and conducted semi-structured interviews with 13 of them one year after completing the course and teaching ECR in the classroom (328 statements). The most prominent strategies immediately after the TPD were constructing learning experiences, tinkering & debugging, and interdisciplinary learning, while one year later, experiential learning and collaborative learning were more common. Regarding the degree of teacher centrality, a year after teaching ECR curriculum the teachers had a significantly higher percentage of statements reflecting their role as a guide-on-the-side and as a partner of students in the learning process. Regarding the contribution of the SPOC for TPD, teacher statements revealed significantly more benefits than challenges in both points of time. Interestingly, the same categories emerged bottom-up as benefits and challenges: a variety of control dimensions, independent learning, learning and knowledge management and collaboration. Implications for educational theory and ECR practice are discussed.
AgrestiA. (2018). An introduction to categorical data analysis. (3rd ed., pp. 39–42).
John Wiley & Sons.
2.
BaekY.WangS.YangD.ChingY. H.SwansonS.ChittooriB. (2019).
Revisiting second graders' robotics with an understand/use-modify-create (U 2 MC) strategy. European Journal of STEM Education,
4(1), 7.
3.
BasogainX.OlabeM. A.OlabeJ. C.RamírezR.GarcíaJ. (2016). PC-01: Introduction to computational thinking. Educational technology in primary and secondary education. In F. J. García-Peñalvo & J. A. Mendes (Eds.), XVIII Simposio Internacional de Informática Educativa, SIIE 2016 (pp. 191–195). Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca.
4.
Blau, I., & Benolol, N. (2016). Can designing self-representations through creative computing promote an incremental view of intelligence and enhance creativity among at-risk youth? Interdisciplinary Journal of e-Skills and Lifelong Learning, 12, 267--278.
5.
Blau, I., & Shamir-Inbal, T. (2018). Digital technologies for promoting “student voice” and co-creating learning experience in an academic course. Instructional Science, 46(2), 315--336.
6.
Blau, I., Shamir-Inbal, T. & Malka. A. (2019). How we teach digital literacy in formal education: The gap between teachers' perspectives and actual educational practices in the classroom. In Proceedings of the Knowledge Management Conference-KM 2019-Knowledge Management: Research, Organization, and Applied Innovation. Warsaw, Poland.
7.
CengelM.AlkanA.CayirE. (2018). In the determination of self-efficacy situations of information technology teachers' coding for middle school students, robotic coding and 3 dimensional design examples of Sakarya Province. Online Submission. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED590997
8.
ChenG.ShenJ.Barth-CohenL.JiangS.HuangX.EltoukhyM. (2017).
Assessing elementary students’ computational thinking in everyday reasoning and robotics programming. Computers & Education,
109, 162–175.
9.
ChenH.ParkH. W.BreazealC. (2020).
Teaching and learning with children: Impact of reciprocal peer learning with a social robot on children’s learning and emotive engagement. Computers & Education,
150, 103836.
10.
DenningP. J. (2017).
Remaining trouble spots with computational thinking. Communications of the ACM,
60(6), 33–39.
11.
DerrickM. G. (2003).
Creating environments conducive for lifelong learning.New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education,
2003(100), 5–18.
12.
FuY. (2019).
A “maker education+ SPOC” teaching model for college political economics courses. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET),
14(03), 139–150.
13.
GabrieleL.BertacchiniF.TaverniseA.Vaca-CárdenasL.PantanoP.BilottaE. (2019).
Lesson planning by computational thinking skills in Italian pre-service teachers. Informatics in Education,
18(1), 69–104.
14.
García-PeñalvoF. J.ReimannD.TuulM.ReesA. M.JormanainenI. (2016). TACCLE 3, O5: An overview of the most relevant literature on coding and computational thinking with emphasis on the relevant issues for teachers. Belgium: TACCLE 3 Consortium. https://doi. org/10.5281/zenodo165123
15.
GrashaA. F.Yangarber-HicksN. (2000).
Integrating teaching styles and learning styles with instructional technology.College Teaching,
48(1), 2–10.
16.
GrossJ. J. (2014).
Emotion regulation: Conceptual and empirical foundations.Handbook of Emotion Regulation,
2, 3–20.
17.
GumennykovaT. P.BlazhkoO. A.LuhovaT. A.TroianovskaY. L.MelnykS. P.RiashchenkoO. I. (2019).
Gamification features of STREAM-education components with education robotics. Applied Aspects of Information Technology,
2, 45–65.
18.
HabermanS. J. (1973).
The analysis of residuals in crossclassified tables. Biometrics,
29, 205–220.
19.
HamariJ.KoivistoJ.SarsaH. (2014, January). Does gamification work? – A literature review of empirical studies on gamification. In 2014 47th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (pp. 3025–3034). IEEE. Retrieved from: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/6758978
20.
HeitinkM.VoogtJ.VerplankenL.van BraakJ.FisserP. (2016).
Teachers’ professional reasoning about their pedagogical use of technology. Computers & Education,
101, 70–83.
21.
HsuT. C.ChangS. C.HungY. T. (2018).
How to learn and how to teach computational thinking: Suggestions based on a review of the literature. Computers & Education,
126, 296–310.
22.
KaleliogluF.GulbaharY.KukulV. (2016).
A framework for computational thinking based on a systematic research review. Baltic Journal of Modern Computing,
4(3), 583–596.
23.
KaplanA. M.HaenleinM. (2016).
Higher education and the digital revolution: About MOOCs, SPOCs, social media, and the Cookie Monster. Business Horizons,
59(4), 441–450.
24.
KappasS.TsolisD. (2018).
Greek university MOOCs and secondary education teachers’ training. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research,
17(5), 26–46.
25.
KhandelwalS.SripadaS. K.ReddyY. R. (2017, February). Impact of gamification on code review process: An experimental study. In R. Ørngreen, M. Buhl & B. Meyer (Eds). Proceedings of the 10th innovations in software engineering conference (pp. 122--126). Retrieved from: https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3021460.3021474
26.
KoukisN.JimoyiannisA. (2019, November). Investigating participants' collaborative patterns in a MOOC for teacher professional development. In European conference on e-learning (pp. 303–312). Academic Conferences International Limited.
27.
KvaleS. (1983).
The qualitative research interview: A phenomenological and a hermeneutical mode of understanding. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology,
14, 171–196.
28.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic enquiry.
Sage Publications.
29.
MarcelinoM. J.PessoaT.VieiraC.SalvadorT.MendesA. J. (2018).
Learning computational thinking and scratch at distance. Computers in Human Behavior,
80, 470–477.
30.
MasonS. L.RichP. J. (2019).
Preparing elementary school teachers to teach computing, coding, and computational thinking. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education,
19(4), 790–824.
NiggJ. T. (2017).
Annual research review: On the relations among self‐regulation, self‐control, executive functioning, effortful control, cognitive control, impulsivity, risk‐taking, and inhibition for developmental psychopathology.Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
58(4), 361–383.
33.
OliverD. G.SerovichJ. M.MasonT. L. (2005).
Constraints and opportunities with interview transcription: Towards reflection in qualitative research. Social Forces,
84(2), 1273–1289.
34.
Rich, P. J., Jones, B., Belikov, O., Yoshikawa, E., & Perkins, M. (2017). Computing and engineering in elementary school: The effect of year-long training on elementary teacher self-efficacy and beliefs about teaching computing and engineering. International Journal of Computer Science Education in Schools, 1(1), 1--20.
35.
RodgersC. (2002).
Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey and reflective thinking. Teachers College Record,
104(4), 842–866.
36.
RomeroM.LepageA.LilleB. (2017).
Computational thinking development through creative programming in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education,
14(1), 42.
37.
ScaradozziD.ScrepantiL.CesarettiL.StortiM.MazzieriE. (2019).
Implementation and assessment methodologies of teachers’ training courses for STEM activities. Technology, Knowledge and Learning,
24(2), 247–268.
38.
SchererR.SiddiqF.ViverosB. S. (2018). Technology and the mind: Does learning to code improve cognitive skills?. In Proceedings of the technology, mind, and society (pp. 1–1). Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1145/3183654.3183658
39.
SelbyC. C.WoollardJ. (2013). Computational thinking: The developing definition. In Presented at the 18th annual conference on innovation and technology in computer science education, Canterbury. Retrieved from: https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/356481/
40.
SentanceS.CsizmadiaA. (2015, June). Teachers’ perspectives on successful strategies for teaching Computing in school. In IFIP TCS. Retrieved from: file:///C:/Users/shlomit/Downloads/TeachersPerspectivesIFIPWithAuthorDetailsv2.pdf
41.
SharpeD. (2015).
Chi-square test is statistically significant: Now what?.Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation,
20(1), 8.
ThomasJ. B.SussmanS. W.HendersonJ. C. (2001).
Understanding “strategic learning”: Linking organizational learning, knowledge management, and sensemaking. Organization Science,
12(3), 331–345.
44.
ToikkanenT.LeinonenT. (2017). The code ABC SPOC: Experiences from a coding and computational thinking SPOC for Finnish primary school teachers. In R. Rich & C.B. Hodges (Eds). Emerging research, practice, and policy on computational thinking (pp. 239–248). Springer.
45.
TozadoreD. C.RomeroR. A. F. (2020).
Graphical user interface for educational content programming with social robots activities and how teachers may perceive it. Revista Brasileira de Informática na Educação,
28, 191.
46.
WangX. H.WangJ. P.WenF. J.WangJ.TaoJ. Q. (2016).
Exploration and practice of blended teaching model based flipped classroom and SPOC in higher university. Journal of Education and Practice,
7(10), 99–104.
47.
WingJ. M. (2008).
Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences,
366(1881), 3717–3725.
48.
YadavA.HongH.StephensonC. (2016).
Computational thinking for all: Pedagogical approaches to embedding 21st century problem solving in K-12 classrooms. TechTrends,
60(6), 565–568.
49.
Yondler, Y., Blau, I., Ben-Yehudah, G., & Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2018). Different but equally effective? Four models for technology-enhanced optimal teaching of digital literacy skills. In Proceedings of the EARLI -- Instructional Design & Educational Technology Meeting: Instructional Design and Technology for 21st Century Learning: Challenges, Solutions, and Future Directions. Bonn, Germany.
50.
Zviel-GirshinR.LuriaA.ShahamC. (2020).
Robotics as a tool to enhance technological thinking in early childhood. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(2), 294--302.
