Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Code.org is a leading non-profit organization providing professional learning (PL) for K-12 teachers across the United States to advance computer science (CS) education. While PL is known to improve teaching practices and student outcomes in general education, CS, and gifted education, limited research has specifically examined how CS-focused PL influences teachers working with gifted students (GT). This study aimed to assess the effects of CS-focused PL on teachers’ self-efficacy and classroom practices, particularly in supporting high-ability learners. We collected data through teacher surveys, classroom observations, and focus group interviews. Results showed notable increases in teacher self-efficacy, although classroom practices demonstrated variability. The study discusses potential modifications to the PL framework to enhance classroom implementation and better meet the needs of gifted students. These findings have important implications for sustaining improved instructional practices and effectively challenging GT students in CS education.

Keywords

gifted education professional learning computational thinking underserved populations instructional strategies

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Antoniou

Kyriakides

(2013). A dynamic integrated approach to teacher professional development: Impact and sustainability of the effects on improving teacher behaviour and student outcomes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.08.001

Azano

A. P.

Callahan

C. M.

Bass

Rasheed

(2020). Supporting gifted education in rural schools. Rural Educator, 41(2), 47–54. https://doi.org/10.35608/ruraled.v41i2.851

Azano

A. P.

Callahan

C. M.

Brodersen

Caughey

(2017). Responding to challenges of gifted education in rural communities. Global Education Review, 4(1), 1–16. https://hdl.handle.net/10919/82836

Benson

Bishaw

Glassman

(2023). Persistent poverty in counties and census tracts. U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2023/acs/acs-51.html

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Brennan

Resnick

(2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. Paper presented at annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association meeting, Vancouver, BC, Canada. https://scratched.gse.harvard.edu/ct/files/AERA2012.pdf

Brigandi

C. B.

Spillane

Rambo-Hernandez

K. E.

Stone

(2022). Teaching in the time of COVID-19: A biological systems theory approach. Frontiers in Education, 7. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2022.964492

Burns

D. E.

Leppien

Omdal

Gubbins

E. J.

Muller

Vahidi

(2006). Teachers’ guide for the explicit teaching of thinking skills. The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented (NRCGT). https://nrcgt.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/953/2015/04/rm06218.pdf

Code.org . (2023). Why computer science? https://code.org/promote

10.

Darling-Hammond

Hyler

M. E.

Gardner

(2017, June 5). Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute. https://doi.org/10.54300/122.311

11.

Desimone

L. M.

(2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08331140

12.

Desimone

L. M.

Porter

A. C.

Garet

M. S.

Yoon

K. S.

Birman

B. F.

(2002). Effects of professional development on teachers’ instruction: Results from a three-year longitudinal study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737024002081

13.

Dessler

(2013). A framework for human resource management (7th ed.). Pearson.

14.

Dobis

E. A.

Krumel

T. P.

Cromartie

Conley

K. L.

Sanders

Ortiz

(2021). Rural America at a glance: 2021 edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (USDA ERS). (Report No 230, Economic Information Bulleting). https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-details?pubid=102575

15.

Enochs

L. G.

Smith

P. L.

Huinker

(2000). Establishing factorial validity of the mathematics teaching efficacy beliefs instrument. School Science & Mathematics, 100(4), 194–202. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2000.tb17256.x

16.

Fahle

Kane

T. J.

Reardon

S. F.

Staiger

S. O.

(2024). The first year of recovery: A district-level analysis. Center for Education Policy Research. Harvard University. The Educational Opportunity Project at Stanford University. https://educationrecoveryscorecard.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/ERS-Report-Final-1.31.pdf

17.

Garet

Porter

Desimone

Birman

Yoon

K. S.

(2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312038004915

18.

Gore

J. M.

Miller

Fray

Harris

Prieto

(2021). Improving student achievement through professional development: Results from a randomized controlled trial of quality teaching rounds. Teaching and Teacher Education, 101, Article 103297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103297

19.

Jocius

Joshi

Dong

Robinson

Cateté

Barnes

, et al. (2020). Code, connect, create: The 3C professional development model to support computational thinking infusion. Proceedings of the 51st ACM Technical Symposium on computer science education. https://doi.org/10.1145/3328778.3366797

20.

Johnsen

S. K.

VanTassel-Baska

Clarenbach

(2017). National standards for the preparation of teachers of gifted students in pre-K-grade 12 schools and their relationship to quality programming. In Johnsen

S. K.

Clarenbach

(Eds.), National gifted education standards for pre-K-grade 12 professional development (pp. 5–36). Prufrock Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003239420-2

21.

Johnson

Kuhfeld

Soland

(2022, March). The forgotten 20 percent: Achievement and growth in rural schools across the nation. Center for school and student progress (brief). https://www.nwea.org/uploads/2022/03/The-forgotten-20-percent-achievement-and-growth-in-rural-schools-across-the-nation_NWEA_research-brief.pdf

22.

Kafai

Proctor

Lui

(2019). From theory bias to theory dialogue: Embracing cognitive, situated, and critical framings of computational thinking in K-12. CS education. ACM Inroads, 11(1), 44–53. https://doi.org/10.1145/3291279.3339400

23.

Kaplan

S. N.

(2016). Curriculum differentiation for gifted students. Prufrock Press.

24.

Kong

S.-C.

Lai

Sun

(2020). Teacher development in computational thinking: Design and learning outcomes of programming concepts, practices and pedagogy. Computers & Education, 151, Article 103872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103872

25.

Kuhfeld

Soland

Lewis

Morton

(2022, March 3). The pandemic has had devastating impacts on learning. In What will it take to help students catch up? Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-pandemic-has-had-devastating-impacts-on-learning-what-will-it-take-to-help-students-catch-up/

26.

Lee

Olszewski-Kubilius

Peternel

(2009). Follow-up with students after 6 years of participation in project EXCITE. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(2), 137–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986208330562

27.

C. O.

Feng

L.-C.

(2020). Teaching higher order thinking skills to gifted students: A meta-analysis. Gifted Education International, 36(2), 196–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261429420917854

28.

Margolis

Estrella

Goode

Holme

J. J.

Nao

(2017). Stuck in the shallow end: Education, race, and computing. MIT Press. (Original work published 2008).

29.

Meyers

C. V.

Molefe

Brandt

W. C.

Zhu

Dhillon

(2016). Impact results of the eMINTS professional development validation study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 38(3), 455–476. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373716638446

30.

Mouza

Codding

Pollock

(2022). Investigating the impact of research-based professional development on teacher learning and classroom practice: Findings from computer science education. Computers & Education, 186, Article 104530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104530

31.

Mutch-Jones

Hicks

Sorge

(2022). Elementary science professional development to impact learning across the curriculum. Teaching and Teacher Education, 112, Article 103625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103625

32.

National Assessment of Educational Progress . (2022). Mathematics state snapshot report. The Nation’s Report Card. https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/subject/publications/stt2022/pdf/2023011WV4.pdf

33.

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) . (2023). Public school data 2021–2022, 2022–2023 school years. Institute of Education Sciences (IES). https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/school_list.asp?Search=1&County=Fayette/County&State=54

34.

National Center for Research on Gifted Education . (2014–2020). Rationale for the 2014–2020 NCRGE research. https://ncrge.uconn.edu/about/2014-2020/

35.

Parker

C. E.

Stylinski

C. D.

Bonney

C. R.

DeLisi

Wong

Doty

(2019). Measuring quality technology integration in science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 28(5), 567–578. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-019-09787-7

36.

Phillips

R. S.

Brooks

(2016). The Hour of Code: Impact on attitudes towards and self-efficacy with computer science. Code.org. https://code.org/files/HourOfCodeImpactStudy_Jan2017.pdf

37.

Rambo-Hernandez

K. E.

Amin

Wilkerson

Brigandi

C. B.

(2025). Teacher rating scales continue to be a problematic source of identification: Evidence from ratings of primary students in a rural, low socioeconomic school. Gifted Child Quarterly, 69(3), 298–302. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862251330254

38.

Rambo-Hernandez

K. E.

Brigandi

C. B.

Spillane

Amin

(2023). Who gets identified? The consequences of variability in teacher ratings and combination rules for determining eligibility for gifted services for young children? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 46(2), 111–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/01623532231162612

39.

Reddy

L. A.

Shernoff

Lekwa

(2021). A randomized controlled trial of instructional coaching in high-poverty urban schools: Examining teacher practices and student outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 86, 151–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2021.04.001

40.

Relkin

De Ruiter

Bers

M. U.

(2020). TechCheck: Development and validation of an unplugged assessment of computational thinking in early childhood education. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(4), 482–498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09831-x

41.

Rich

P. J.

Larsen

R. A.

Mason

S. L.

(2021). Measuring teacher beliefs about coding and computational thinking. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 53(3), 296–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1771232

42.

Scriven

Paul

(1987). Defining critical thinking. Presentation at the 8th Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking and Education Reform, Summer 1987, California. https://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766

43.

Sentance

Waite

Kallia

(2019). Teaching computer programming with PRIMM: A sociocultural perspective. Computer Science Education, 29(2–3), 136–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2019.1608781

44.

Shute

V. J.

Sun

Asbell-Clarke

(2017). Demystifying computational thinking. Educational Research Review, 22, 142–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.09.003

45.

Subotnik

R. F.

Olszewski-Kubilius

Corwith

Calvert

Worrell

F. C.

(2023). Transforming gifted education in schools: Practical applications of a comprehensive framework for developing academic talent. Education Sciences, 13(7), 707–729. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13070707

46.

Taba

Durkin

M. C.

Fraenkel

J. R.

NcNaughton

A. H.

(1971). A teacher's handbook to elementary social studies: An inductive approach (2nd ed.). Addison-Wesley.

47.

Ülger

B. B.

Çepni

(2020). Evaluating the effect of differentiated inquiry-based science lesson modules on gifted students’ scientific process skills. Pegem Journal of Education and Instruction, 10(4), 1289–1324. https://doi.org/10.14527/pegegog.2020.039

48.

U.S. Census Bureau , (2023, May 9). Census bureau releases new report about persistent poverty at county and census-tract level. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2023/persistent-poverty.html

49.

VanTassel-Baska

Baska

(2021). Curriculum planning and instructional design for gifted learners. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003234050

50.

VanTassel-Baska

Johnsen

S. K.

(2017). Making change happen: Implementing the teacher education standards in the real world of education. In Johnsen

S. K.

Clarenbach

(Eds.), National gifted education standards for pre-K-grade 12 professional development (pp. 5–36). Prufrock Press.

51.

Ventista

O. M.

Brown

(2023). Teachers’ professional learning and its impact on students’ learning outcomes: Findings from a systematic review. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 8(1), Article 100565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2023.100565

52.

Wing

J. M.

(2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215

53.

Yoon

K. S.

Duncan

Lee

S. W. Y.

Scarloss

Shapley

(2007). Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2007—No. 033). US Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/southwest/pdf/rel_2007033.pdf

54.

Yuan

Brigandi

C. B.

Rambo-Hernandez

K. E.

Manley

L. C.

(2025). Innovative ongoing support within a multifaceted computational thinking professional learning program improves teachers’ self-efficacy and classroom practices. Computers & Education, 225, Article 105174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105174

Cracking the Code: Enhancing Teacher Self-Efficacy and Student Engagement Through Professional Learning in Computer Science and Gifted Education

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References