Teacher education as stakeholder: teacher educator perspectives on the integration of computational thinking into mathematics and science courses

ABSTRACT

Owing to its recognition as a 21st-century skill, computational thinking (CT) is currently being introduced into school curricula around the world. However, in-service teachers are largely unprepared for this implementation, which, in turn, makes teacher educators (TEds) important stakeholders in preparing prospective teachers to integrate CT into their classroom practices. In this regard, TEds are charged with a twofold responsibility: they must develop not only their own CT skills and digital competence but also a way of teaching these to the next generation of teachers who will facilitate future pupils’ learning. In this paper, we report on 17 TEds’ experience regarding the challenges and opportunities of integrating CT into Norway’s primary teacher education mathematics and science courses two years after CT’s introduction into Norwegian primary schools. A data-driven thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews was conducted. Our analysis suggests that it is challenging to integrate CT into existing courses. Such challenges, as well as opportunities, seem to apply at four levels: the systemic, teacher educator, student teacher, and subject levels. The results provide valuable insights for key stakeholders into the challenges and opportunities of integrating CT into teacher education, thus contributing to the body of research on professional digital competence.

KEYWORDS:

• Computational thinking
• teacher educators
• teacher education
• science
• mathematics
• professional digital competence

Introduction

Recent international efforts aimed at integrating computational thinking (CT) into general education curricula (Bocconi et al., 2022; Hsu et al., 2019) have resulted in an urgent need to improve teachers’ CT skills (Bower & Falkner, 2015; Yadav et al., 2017). In this regard, teacher education (TE) has become an important stakeholder in satisfying the political expectations of CT integration into general education—as a way to empower future citizens with 21st-century skills and foster employability (Bocconi et al., 2022).

Even if the notion of CT was the underlying idea in Papert’s (1980) ground-breaking work on stimulating children’s mathematical thinking with the Logo programming language, the current CT movement is, first and foremost, influenced by Wing’s (2006) understanding of CT as a problem-solving approach utilising basic computer science concepts. Many definitions, models and frameworks have followed (e.g. Brennan & Resnick, 2012; Shute et al., 2017; Weintrop et al., 2016), each with slightly different conceptualisations of CT. Here, drawing on Wing’s (2006) understanding, we view CT as part of mathematics and science teachers’ professional digital competence. This is in line with how various frameworks for digital competence have attempted to include CT in their outlines (e.g. Kelentrić et al., 2017; Loureiro et al., 2022).

Admitting that professional digital competence in the teaching profession has developed more slowly than anticipated (Tondeur et al., 2018), we need to know more about where we stand in terms of integrating CT into TE and how to increase the slope of the developmental curve. Acknowledging that the inclusion of CT has a strong foothold, we assert that this is an opportunity to advance professional digital competence in the teaching profession a step further.

The new primary and secondary education curriculum in Norway introduced CT through existing school subjects; mathematics, science, music, and arts and crafts (Ministry of Education and Research, 2019). In Norway, centrally prepared national guidelines set directives and guide TE institutions in preparing their own local programme plans and course descriptions. In response to the new school curriculum, some TE programmes have taken institutional curricular decisions to integrate CT into their mathematics and science course descriptions, setting down in writing the digital competencies needed by student teachers (STs) (Rajapakse Mohottige et al., in press). This is timely, considering how Norwegian teachers were unprepared for the implementation that took place in the autumn of 2020 (Nordby et al., 2022), highlighting the need for TE to modelling and demonstrating for STs how to integrate CT into subjects. Now, two years after CT’s implementation in Norwegian schools, we put TE under the microscope.

In this study, addressing the call for more research on CT integration into TE (Yadav et al., 2017), we report on the perspectives of 17 teacher educators (TEds) regarding the integration of CT into TE (grades 1–7, ages 6–13) in mathematics and science in Norway. In order to move towards a ‘change’ in terms of integrating CT into TE, it is important to understand the current status of CT integration and uncover the associated challenges and opportunities. Norwegian TEds’ notions of challenges and opportunities can provide valuable information and fruitful directions for further research in the Norwegian and European context and beyond. Therefore, we set out to shed light on this unexplored area, posing the following research question:

What are the challenges and opportunities of integrating computational thinking into teacher education that feature in mathematics and science teacher educators’ accounts?

Literature review

Across countries and educational systems, a wide variation exists regarding how, to what extent, at what levels, and in which subject(s) CT has been introduced (Bocconi et al., 2022; Hsu et al., 2019). Burgeoning research on CT implementation efforts have resulted in an accumulation of models to guide teachers in how to integrate CT into primary and secondary classrooms (e.g. Azeka & Yadav, 2022; Grover, 2021). While a progression of integrated computational experiences through primary to secondary level is suggested in Azeka and Yadav’s model (Azeka & Yadav, 2022), Grover (2021) suggests the intersection between discipline, CT and pedagogy as being paramount in integrating CT into disciplinary learning.

Zooming in on science and mathematics, we find that the extant research on CT in education offers both pedagogical and cognitive implications. While some studies put forward frameworks focusing on CT in mathematics alone (Pérez, 2018), others focus exclusively on CT in science (Hurt et al., 2023), although Weintrop et al. (2016) combined the two. The latter study highlighted the reciprocal relationship for learning (i.e. ‘using computation to enrich mathematics and science learning and using mathematics and science contexts to enrich computational learning’ [Weintrop et al., 2016, p. 128]) associated with bringing CT into mathematics and science. However, we need to know more about TE’s double role of ‘facilitating the enhancement of STs’ professional skills and their expertise of facilitating pupils’ learning’ (Engen et al., 2015, p. 70). Research shows STs need both CT content knowledge and CT pedagogical content knowledge (Bower & Falkner, 2015; Ottenbreit-Leftwich et al., 2022), and empowering STs with these knowledges is a means of performing TE’s double role.

Furthermore, in the body of research on the inclusion of CT in TE, we find that most studies tend to report on how to include CT. Here, the message seems unanimous: studies find programming to be the most popular vehicle to facilitate CT skills development in STs, with visual block-based programming languages yielding more promising results than text-based programming languages (Cetin, 2016; Umutlu, 2021). In TE science courses, such block-based programmes are often used for modelling and simulation (Adler & Kim, 2018; Vasconcelos & Kim, 2020) and, in mathematics, as a means to solve problems (Gleasman & Kim, 2020). Adeolu (2022) report on that STs’ mathematical knowledge and ability to code are interdependent. Moreover, in the context of Norway, both in TE course descriptions (Rajapakse Mohottige et al., in press) and the new school curriculum (Vinnervik & Bungum, 2022), programming appears to be the most salient CT practice. Nevertheless, studies also report attempts to combine plugged and unplugged CT approaches to enhance STs’ CT skills (Voon et al., 2023). In Moon et al. (2023), taking both mathematics and science methods courses into account, they present a five-lesson module for integrating CT into TE. Through an Experience First, Formalize Later approach, STs could develop a flexible understanding of CT before being exposed to formal CT definitions.

Elsewhere, studies report on the challenges of including CT in TE. Li (2020) found that there is little buy-in (little willingness to engage) from faculty, administration, TEds, or STs, and that challenges exist related to capacity building and logistics. Also, Butler and Leahy (2021) emphasise that STs need time to develop skills required for CT integration, pointing at time constraints as a challenge. To a much lesser extent, studies identify opportunities that arise from the inclusion of CT in TE science and mathematics courses in terms of increased content learning (Adler & Kim, 2018; Gadanidis et al., 2017; Jaipal-Jamani & Angeli, 2017).

When taking the extant literature reporting challenges and opportunities of integrating CT into primary and secondary education into account, it revealed that challenges seem to be deeply rooted in professional development issues such as teachers’ lack of training (Kravik et al., 2022), resulting in limitations in teachers’ understanding of CT (Dagienė et al., 2022; Kravik et al., 2022; Nordby et al., 2022). Moreover, research reports on how teachers are challenged by issues such as connecting CT/programming with the subject, pupils’ motivation, handling technological issues, and limited time available for teaching through CT (Broley et al., 2023; Rich et al., 2019).Conversely, the research also identifies opportunities of CT integration, the most cited being the facilitation of content learning (e.g. Andersen, 2022; Broley et al., 2023; Gadanidis, 2017).

To sum up, this synthesis of the literature pertaining to CT integration in TE reveals that most studies focus either on how CT can be practically integrated into teaching (Adler & Kim, 2018; Jaipal-Jamani & Angeli, 2017; Moon et al., 2023), professional development initiatives (Broley et al., 2023) or on STs’ perspectives/perceptions of CT (Bower & Falkner, 2015; Yadav et al., 2014). However, we came across only one study that examines TEds’ perspectives on the integration of CT into TE: Ocak et al. (2023) report on a study from the US where they have analysed TEds’ perceptions of CT integration before and after a year-long professional development programme. They report significant changes in TEds’ CT confidence and ability for CT integration, where TEds, after the intervention, perceive CT as a new literacy practice and view CT as a transdisciplinary metacognitive pedagogical skill.

We deem that more knowledge of TEds’ perspectives would illuminate the complexities, tensions and also opportunities of integrating CT into TE, thus providing important insights to ensure the sustainability of CT education.

Method

In this qualitative study aimed at capturing Norwegian TEds’ perspectives on the integration of CT in mathematics and science in TE for grades 1–7 (ages 6–13), we draw on 17 semi-structured interviews: nine with mathematics teacher educators (MTEds) and eight with science teacher educators (STEds), all of whom are presently working as MTEds and STEds in their roles of assistant or associate professors. During the recruitment of participants for this study, purposive sampling had to be used. Since the introduction of CT is a nascent development in Norway, all MTEds and STEds have not yet integrated CT into their teaching. Therefore, to recruit participants who have practically integrated CT, we used information we collected in a previous study (reported on in Rajapakse Mohottige et al., in press) regarding such TEds. Our sample consisted of TEds representing eight of Norway’s 10 TE institutions that offer grade 1–7 TE programmes. Ethics approval was provided by the Norwegian Agency for Shared Services in Education and Research.

Committing to our ontological and epistemological positions suggesting that people’s perspectives and narratives are meaningful properties of the social reality that we explore through talking, we have selected interviews as our data generation method. The semi-structured interviews were structured around certain core aspects we wished to explore, inspired by literature and our findings from having analysed mathematics and science TE course descriptions (see Rajapakse Mohottige et al., in press). The main interview questions were, ‘What do you think about integrating CT into your subject? What kind of training do the students get on CT? How would you describe CT? Have you integrated CT into your teaching? If so, how do you do it? Have you had any formal training on CT/programming? Have you integrated CT in the course descriptions?’ Probing questions like ‘Can you give an example? Can you elaborate?’ were posed when necessary. The interviews typically lasted about 45 minutes and were conducted via Zoom by the first author during autumn 2022. The audio recordings were transcribed verbatim using f4transkript software. The interviews were subsequently analysed using thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006).

Thematic analysis

We report here on our data-driven thematic analysis in which we systematically identified and organised patterns of meanings across our dataset ‘without trying to fit [them] into a pre-existing coding frame, or the researcher’s analytic preconceptions’ (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 83). This process of six phases enabled us to identify and make sense of collective or shared meanings and experiences. See Figure 1 for a detailed description of the six phases, and Table 1 for overview of revised codes, candidate themes and themes.

Figure 1. Flow chart of the thematic analysis.

Table 1. Revised codes, candidate themes and dominant themes.

Revised codes	CT as a thinking pattern	CT as trial and error	CT as problem solving
	CT and pedagogical methods in teaching	CT and programming in teaching	Students’ training in CT and/or programming
	CT using collaborative tasks	Benefits with CT	Outcome of teaching CT
	CT and course descriptions/steering documents	Resources that TEds use to teach CT	Relationship between CT and programming
	Experiences related to CT/programming during students’ practicum	Assessment of CT	CT and the Udir model
	CT as to think mathematically	Reflections around CT integrated into the subject	Misunderstandings related to CT
	TEds’ training in CT and/or programming	Experienced relevance to developing CT skills	Difficulties related to integrating CT
Candidate themes	Conceptual complexity	CT and teaching	CT training
	Possibilities	CT as programming	Tensions
Themes	Challenges of integrating CT	Opportunities of integrating CT

In phase 5, after identifying two dominant, overarching themes encompassing TEds talking about challenges and opportunities regarding integrating CT into TE, we refined our initial research question (from asking about perspectives in general to asking more specifically about challenges and opportunities regarding integrating CT into TE) following Braun and Clarke (2006), who assert that in a data-driven (bottom-up, inductive) thematic analysis, ‘the specific research question can evolve through the coding process’ (p. 84). The refined research question allowed us to exclusively focus on these two themes. Hence, in phase 5, we conducted a detailed analysis for both themes, ‘identifying the “story” that each theme tells’ (Braun & Clarke, 2006, p. 92). At this point, we noticed how TEds talk about both challenges and opportunities that apply at four levels: systemic, teacher educator, student teacher, and subject. These levels are evident in our presentation of the themes in the Results section. Finally, in phase six, always keeping track of which part of the ‘story’ belonged to MTEds, STEds, or both, we ensured that we could identify sufficient evidence for the two generated themes.

In presenting our analysis, we included quotes that are illustrative of typical aspects across the data material. They were translated from Norwegian to readable English and discussed amongst the authors, making sure that the initial meaning was captured. All the interviewees are given numbers and ‘names’ signposting subject affiliation (e.g. MTEd1 is mathematics teacher educator number 1).

Since the authors possessed varying levels of experience from no experience to experience in conducting programming courses in TE, there was a blend of outsider and insider perspectives which helped to balance any biased interpretations. Involvement of several researchers contributed to establish trustworthiness of the study through researcher triangulation.

Results

Having settled on two main themes featuring in our data—how STEds and MTEds saw CT integration as an opportunity and a challenge—we learned how these two themes applied at four interrelated levels: the systemic level (related to the entire TE system at a given university); the teacher educator level; the student teacher level; and the subject level. This enabled us to situate where the opportunities or challenges are rooted. We use the four levels to organise this section.

Systemic level

One overarching point made by MTEds and STEds is how they are challenged by a lack of guidelines at national level on how and to what extent CT should be integrated into TE:

I find it challenging that there are no clear guidelines at the national level. Because we’re supposed to create our course descriptions based on the national guidelines for primary school teacher training, and when these national guidelines aren’t updated two years after a new curriculum was implemented, I think this is a system error. We’re supposed to be ahead.

(MTEd2)

This lack of initiative at the systemic level exacerbates a recurring concern regarding priorities. Considering that most TEds are challenged by how integrating CT into subjects is perceived as ‘very time consuming’ (MTEd1), questions are raised:

What do we think is most important that student teachers should know when they’re finished with five years of teacher training? Would we prefer that they’re really good at teaching mathematics? I think it’s challenging to spend a lot of time on CT. So yes, there’s also a time challenge here.

(MTEd10)

This question and ones like it need to be addressed at the systemic level because ‘there are so many themes that need to be included [in science]’ (STEd8) as in mathematics. STEd8 elaborated on the issue, shifting from the language of CT to that of programming:

The first challenge is that we want to teach science and not programming, and when the STs don’t know anything about programming, a lot of time is spent learning programming and not science. That’s the biggest problem, really.

(STEd8)

From this, we read that more resources (in terms of time) are needed at the systemic level to include CT and programming in science and mathematics. Another challenge at systemic level specific to Norway, is the translation of CT into algoritmisk tenkning [= algorithmic thinking] in Norwegian. TEds are challenged by this, since, especially in primary mathematics, algorithm is most often used to address methods for how to add, subtract, multiply and divide. However, this challenge is more like a matter of getting used to it:

It is a bit strange that we have actually translated this computational thinking into algorithmic thinking here in Norway, and my first encounter with that term was actually a bit difficult because (…) we think very much like an algorithm then (…) but that is not what computational thinking in Norwegian should be.

(MTEd3)

Teacher educator level

Given that the TEds’ main expertise lies in either science or mathematics, perhaps most conspicuous was how TEds emphasised their lack of training in CT and programming:

I also miss more training for us … as professionals. I haven’t been given any resources specifically for me to be able to learn more about programming … it’s very unfortunate.

(MTEd2)

In the collegium of TEds across universities, there is a stated need to ‘educate the educators’: ‘Right now, we don’t have anybody [in our department] who knows this well enough’ (STEd8). MTEd2 reiterates this and asks: ‘Who, actually, has this competence?’. The lack of training makes it challenging for TEds to integrate CT and programming into their subjects, and they feel inadequately prepared to help STs with the problems they encounter: ‘It quickly became complicated, and I couldn’t help the students with the questions they had’ (STEd8). It thus became evident that the individual TEds’ CT skills determine the level of CT integration. The TEds feel their results fall short of the high threshold for including CT and programming in their subject; for some, this relates to the issue of time already addressed at the systemic level:

I feel there’s a threshold for programming for many who work here … because they think it’s a waste of time.

(STEd13)

The lack of experience is also a challenge: ‘The most challenging thing is that we lack good examples to draw on’ (MTEd11). MTEd11 explained this is because it is new, they did not engage in CT and programming in their own schooling, and this makes it hard to decide how to ‘know what works or how to do things’ (MTEd11).

This being said, on a more positive note, several TEds also saw the inclusion of CT and programming as an opportunity for their continued professional development:

After all, we, as TEds, are also developing. And this is the road we must travel—clearly, we need to integrate digital tools in our teaching.

(STEd8)

Such development is deemed both welcome and necessary:

We’re conducting research-based education, so we’re constantly developing our own competence (…) we’ve tried out a lot of different things and are trying to systematically improve.

(STEd12)

Student teacher level

Both STEds and MTEds perceive STs’ (lack of) mathematical knowledge as a limiting factor in developing CT and programming skills.

If they struggle to understand a formula for speed, then they must first understand the formula before you can start programming it.

(STEd17)

Moreover, persistence, which is required when engaging in debugging processes in programming, is a skill many STs lack. For instance, MTEd7 indicated how thinking computationally is totally new for most STs, thus making it challenging to ‘stay in the problem’:

The difficulty with programming is perhaps that the STs find it new and hard because they lack experience with it. They haven’t learned anything about it at school, so the whole way of thinking is completely new to them, so having to try to think like that … step by step, or try to see what goes wrong when they don’t get something done, or taking a step back and looking at what they are doing … somehow managing to get them to stay in the process, I think that’s perhaps the most difficult issue.

(MTEd7)

Adding to how TEds find many STs unprepared or poorly prepared to engage in CT and programming (which surely adds to the time issue addressed at the two previous levels), both MTEds and STEds find that STs are challenged by misconceptions about what CT is. While some STs (especially in the beginning) held the misconception that CT can only be applied when working with Scratch or a Micro:bit—in other words, only in relation to programming and coding—others saw CT strictly as an algorithm (perhaps due to how CT is translated into Norwegian):

Many think that it’s about learning an algorithm … . That it’s not about developing an algorithm, it’s about learning an algorithm. We spend a lot of time discussing what this difference is.

(MTEd1)

Perhaps even more importantly, integrating CT has the potential to make STs exploratory and brave enough to keep trying:

They’re not going to learn enough in the few lessons we have on campus. However, they have the willingness to continue learning … . If we want our pupils to be exploratory, then teachers must also dare to be exploratory.

(MTEd1)

Exposing STs to CT and programming in TE may evoke their interest in further development. That is an opportunity in itself, which was further elaborated upon by one STEd:

[T]hey have encountered programming here, but that the STs who are interested can have the opportunity to continue working with it at school. [represents an opportunity]

(STEd8)

Subject level

The subject-level challenges are connected to the nature of the subjects, turning perhaps some of the positives (CT is included in subjects similar in nature) into negatives. For example, across subjects, TEds highlighted challenges connected to the fact that equal sign and variables have different meanings in mathematics and programming:

The concept variable in mathematics and programming doesn’t necessarily mean the same thing. There are a number of overlapping words from mathematics and programming that don’t mean the same thing, and there you see how misunderstandings may emerge. A variable in programming won’t work in the same way as in mathematics … . [Moreover], in mathematics, it’s very important that the equal sign means that there is the same amount on both sides. It’s not the same if you write in a programming language … where you can sort of use the equal sign as an operator.

(MTEd10)

Thus, TEds are concerned that years of work building an understanding of the equal sign in mathematics will be destroyed: ‘[I]t’s essential that they understand that there are differences, to avoid misconceptions’ (MTEd10).

This being said, regarding the subject level, more opportunities are identified than challenges. For instance, MTEds held the view that CT integration in mathematics imparts strong momentum to problem solving, which is at the core of mathematics, since CT can be ‘seen as a sub-category of exploration and problem solving’ (MTEd9):

It’s also an advantage that the focus on CT can give a greater focus on problem solving. I feel this especially in relation to the time it takes to make new students understand what mathematics is about (…) because mathematics is largely about problem solving. I think that this focus on CT, rather than programming, can give a stronger momentum to mathematics teaching.

(MTEd9)

This is also supported by MTEd2, who adds more to the argument:

We talk about exploratory teaching and we talk about problem solving … . I think it’s just as much about CT because you use a lot of the same concepts, right. You have to look for patterns, you have to divide into smaller parts, you have to debug, you have to try again, you have to have patience.

(MTEd2)

The same goes for modelling in science. STEds see modelling as a platform to apply CT and gain a deeper understanding of abstract scientific concepts. STEd14 elaborated on a teaching sequence where modelling was utilised to improve STs’ learning about motion in physics:

We have now taken this example of an inclined throw or throwing process neglecting air resistance, for example, and it’s a simplified model. We could take it further in a master’s degree project and perhaps develop a possible classroom instruction including air resistance, for example.

(STEd14)

Moreover, many TEds assert that CT and programming open new doors: ‘I think it provides us with good opportunities to work more practically in science, and to work differently’ (STEd5). This was also true for MTEds. Most of them believed that CT and programming can be used as tools in areas like geometry, statistics and probability:

Yes, in connection with geometry, I’ve used a lot of the Scratch drawing function where STs have been given the task of drawing different things, and then they get a little … a slightly different view of angles [as a mathematical term], for example.

(MTEd11)

At times, this can mean even more than obtaining another view of things; the inclusion of CT can be about how ‘programming helps to solve a mathematical problem or to get an answer that otherwise would have not been got’ (MTEd6). Thus, CT and programming can enrich the practices in the subjects and also give rise to new forms of working in mathematics:

Depending on the situation, certain advantages can result in new ways of collaborating in mathematics … and being able to represent things in different ways; it can often be made easier with the help of some programming and CT … . And there’s more variety which is something we need, I think.

(MTEd11)

Discussion and concluding remarks

In this paper, we asked, ‘What are the challenges and opportunities of integrating CT into TE that feature in mathematics and science TEds’ accounts?’ Our analysis brought to light several challenges and opportunities, finding that to date, challenges are more prominent in their accounts than opportunities. Initially, we hypothesised the existence of substantial differences between MTEds’ and STEds’ accounts (due to differences between subjects); however, this was not the case: TEds across the two subjects share more convergent than divergent views on ‘where we are’ in relation to integrating CT into subjects. And where are we? While the first author deliberately posed questions concerning CT, most TEds turned to the language of programming in their answers. We find that today, TEds tend to look at programming as the most salient CT practice, reflecting what Vinnervik and Bungum (2022) found was the case in the new primary and secondary school curriculum in Norway. In what follows, we will discuss the main findings in light of previous research while considering possible future initiatives regarding where we are, where we are headed, and how we might get there.

Challenges of integrating CT into TE

We found challenges at four levels. At the systemic level, the translation of CT was a challenge causing challenges for both TEds and STs, similar for primary mathematics teachers as in the study by Nordby et al. (2022). Moreover, TEds lacked proper guidelines at the national level, leading to uncertainty regarding the objectives and operationalisation of CT integration in TE. The missing link between the current school curricula, national guidelines for TE and TE mathematics and science course descriptions may translate into buy-in issues among MTEds, STEds and institutional leaders, which is reported as a challenge to integrating CT into TE (Li, 2020). This finding calls for the alignment of policy with practice; all stakeholder groups need to take action to effectively integrate CT. Seemingly, the absence of action from one stakeholder can affect the entire integration process.

At the TEd level, the prime challenge was insufficient training in CT and programming and the time and resources to address it, similar to what is reported in the literature on in-service teachers’ struggles (Kravik et al., 2022). We know from Li (2020) that a shortage of CT competence in TEds is a hindrance to integrating CT into TE. Also, we find that TEds experience a twofold responsibility (i.e. they must develop their own CT skills or professional digital competence and, simultaneously, develop that of STs to enable them to teach it to their future pupils). This calls for more support for professional development. We assert that it is worth looking further into the successful intervention reported by Ocak et al. (2023). Such efforts are long term investments in integrating CT into primary education. However, as our findings reveal that TEds’ CT competence varies, we recommend adopting a nuanced rather than a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach, similar to Tondeur et al. (2019) suggestion, in the context of developing TEds’ information and communication technology competence.

At the ST level, a lack of mathematical knowledge was identified as a challenge in both STEds’ and MTEds’ accounts. As STs’ mathematical knowledge and coding abilities are reported to be interdependent (see, e.g. Adeolu, 2022), this finding highlights that STs lack a sound mathematical knowledge base which calls for the attention of MTEds. Mathematical knowledge is a prerequisite to computational modelling in mathematics and science; its introduction is recommended towards the latter stages in CT integration models (Azeka & Yadav, 2022).

The different meanings of concepts such as variables and the use of the equal sign in mathematics and programming were identified as a challenge at the subject level. This means that the TEds in our study noticed some of the same challenges reported by schoolteachers (Bråting & Kilhamn, 2021; Žanko et al., 2022).

Opportunities arising from integrating CT into TE

At the systemic level, no recurring opportunities were identified in the TEds’ accounts, revealing a lack of balance at this level: TEds are challenged without seeing any opportunities. This has implications for future initiatives. In schools, however, there are signs of teachers adopting interdisciplinary projects (Bungum & Mogstad, 2022) in which they collaborate across subjects. TEds may also model such interdisciplinarity for prospective teachers.

However, at the TEd level, coinciding with how TEds are challenged by their lack of training (discussed above), they see integration of CT in TE as an opportunity to upskill their CT and programming skills. Despite the lack of examples of CT integration and shortage of skills, TEds are expected to be autodidactic in order to equip STs with content, pedagogy and instructional strategies that enable them to gain a conceptual understanding of CT and apply it in their disciplines (Yadav et al., 2017). To date, according to the TEds, they have needed to stage such upskilling initiatives themselves. We assert that upskilling initiatives at the systemic level are welcome.

CT integration into TE enables STs to be innovative and exploratory and to develop their perseverance and self-efficacy in a comfortable setting before they meet the real challenges in schools. Our findings indicate that at the subject level, TEds highlighted the reciprocal learning relationships between CT and mathematics or science as an opportunity derived from integrating CT. This neatly complements what Weintrop et al. (2016) describe as a benefit and what studies from both the TE (Adler & Kim, 2018; Gadanidis et al., 2017; Jaipal-Jamani & Angeli, 2017) and primary and secondary education (Andersen, 2022) literature affirm: CT in subjects has the potential to facilitate and deepen content learning. This requires teachers to develop domain pedagogical content knowledge, CT/coding pedagogical content knowledge, and disciplinary content and CT (Grover, 2021) which can transform the delivery of domain content.

There are some limitations to this study, primarily connected to how the purposive sample limits the transferability of the findings. Thus, the knowledge produced may only be valid to our population which is MTEds and STEds who have already integrated CT into their teaching. In addition, since all the participating STEds had physics backgrounds, this limited the voices of STEds. Future studies should include STEds with different subject backgrounds (e.g. chemistry, biology, and geology). We also acknowledge that, having conducted the interviews on Zoom, there may have been some nonverbal cues that have gone unnoticed.

In sum, this paper has revealed both challenges and, to a lesser extent, opportunities arising from TEds’ current attempts to integrate CT into existing TE mathematics and science courses. More research is needed to follow up on these challenges. In this regard, the most pressing need is to make professional development more accessible to TEds in relation to CT and programming. TEds as fluent CT and programming ‘speakers’ will, without doubt, ease the process of empowering future generations with these important 21st-century skills.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).