Exploring high school computer science course teachers’ instructional design processes for improving students’ “computational thinking” skills

References

• Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., Raths, J., & Wittroc, M. C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Addison-Wesley Longman, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Angeli, C., Voogt, J., Fluck, A., Webb, M., Cox, M., Malyn-Smith, J., & Zagami, J. (2016). A k-6 computational thinking curriculum framework: Implications for teacher knowledge. Education Technology and Society, 19(3), 47–57.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balanskat, A., & Engelhardt, K. (2015). Computing our future: Computer programming and coding-Priorities, school curricula and initiatives across Europe. European Schoolnet.
   Google Scholar
• Baškarada, S. (2014, June 10). Qualitative case study guidelines. The Qualitative Report, 19(40), 1–18. Retrieved October 19, 2020, from https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol19/iss40/3
   Google Scholar
• Bennett, S., Agostinho, S., & Lockyer, L. (2017). The process of designing for learning: Understanding university teachers’ design work. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(1), 125–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-016-9469-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berland, M., & Wilensky, U. (2015). Comparing virtual and physical robotics environments for supporting complex systems and computational thinking. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 24(5), 628–647. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-015-9552-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blair, E. (2015). A reflexive exploration of two qualitative data coding techniques. Journal of Methods and Measurement in the Social Sciences, 6(1), 14–29. https://doi.org/10.2458/v6i1.18772
   Google Scholar
• Branson, R. K., Rayner, G. T., Cox, J. L., Furman, J. P., King, F. J., & Hannum, W. H. (1975). Interservice procedures for instructional systems development: Executive summary and model (Report No. 022164). National Technical Information Service.
   Google Scholar
• Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012, April 13–17). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking. In Annual American Educational Research Association Meeting (pp. 1–25).
   Google Scholar
• Caeli, E. N., & Bundsgaard, J. (2020). Computational thinking in compulsory education: A survey study on initiatives and conceptions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(1), 551–573. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09694-z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Czerkawski, B. (2013, March 25). Instructional design for computational thinking. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference.
   Google Scholar
• Daggett, W. R. (2016). Rigor/relevance framework. http://www.daggett.com/pdf/Rigor%20Relevance%20Framework%20White%20Paper%202016.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2003). Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Elliott, V. (2018, November 24). Thinking about the coding process in qualitative data analysis. The Qualitative Report, 23(11), 2850–2861. Retrieved October 22, 2020, from https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol23/iss11/14/
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ertmer, P. A., Stepich, D. A., York, C. S., Stickman, A., Wu, X., Zurek, S., & Goktas, Y. (2008). How instructional design experts use knowledge and experience to solve ill‐structured problems. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 21(1), 17–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.20013
   Google Scholar
• Fields, D. A., Lui, D., & Kafai, Y. B. (2019). Teaching computational thinking with electronic textiles: Modeling iterative practices and supporting personal projects in exploring computer science. In S. C. Kong & H. Abelson (Eds.), Computational thinking education (pp. 67–22). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6528-7_16
   Google Scholar
• Gerring, J. (2004). What is a case study and what is it good for? American Political Science Review, 98(2), 341–354. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055404001182
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in k–12: A review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, (42)(1), 38–43. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12463051
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hsu, T. C., Chang, S. C., & Hung, Y. T. (2018). How to learn and how to teach computational thinking: Suggestions based on a review of the literature. Computers & Education, 126(7), 296–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.07.004
   Google Scholar
• International Society for Technology in Education & Computer Science Teachers Association. (2011). Operational definition of computational thinking for k-12 education. http://www.iste.org/docs/ct-documents/computational-thinking-operational-definition-flyer.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Leonard, J., Buss, A., Gamboa, R., Mitchell, M., Fashola, O. S., Hubert, T., & Almughyirah, S. (2016). Using robotics and game design to enhance children’s self-efficacy, stem attitudes, and computational thinking skills. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(6), 860–876. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9628-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lye, S. Y., & Koh, J. H. L. (2014). Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through programming: What is next for k-12? Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merriam, S. B. (1988). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. Jossey-Bass Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Noh, J., & Lee, J. (2020). Effects of robotics programming on the computational thinking and creativity of elementary school students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(1), 463–484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09708-w
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parsons, S., Vaughn, M., Scales, R., Gallagher, M., Parsons, A., Davis, S., Pierczynski, M., & Allen, M. (2018). Teachers’ instructional adaptations: A research synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 88(2), 205–242. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317743198
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peel, A., Sadler, T. D., & Friedrichsen, P. (2019). Learning natural selection through computational thinking: Unplugged design of algorithmic explanations. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(7), 983–1007. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21545
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reigeluth, C. M. (1983). Instructional design: What is it and why is it? In C. M Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional- design theories and models: An overview of their current status (pp. 3–36). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Rich, K., Yadav, A. (2019, March 19–22). Infusing computational thinking instruction into elementary mathematics and science: Patterns of teacher implementation. In Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 330–334). Chesapeake, VA.
   Google Scholar
• Shute, V. J., Sun, C., & Asbell-Clarke, J. (2017). Demystifying computational thinking. Educational Research Review, 22, 142–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.09.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Şimşek, A. (2000). Öğretim tasarımı ve modelleri. In K. Çağıltay & Y. Göktaş (Eds.), Öğretim teknolojilerinin temelleri: Teoriler, araştırmalar, eğilimler (pp. 105–123). Pegem Net Yayıncılık.
   Google Scholar
• Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Stark, J. S. (2000). Planning introductory college courses: Content, context, and form. Instructional Science, 28(5), 413–438. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026516231429
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tam, A. C. F. (2012). Teachers’ misconceptions and questionable practices when using Putonghua as the medium-of-instruction: A case study of Hong Kong. Teachers and Teaching, 18(6), 655–673. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2012.746500
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The Royal Society. (2012). Shut down or restart? The way forward for computing in UK schools. https://royalsociety.org/∼/media/Royal_Society_Content/education/policy/computing-in-schools/2012-01-12-Computing-in-Schools.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Vallance, M., & Towndrow, P. A. (2016). Pedagogic transformation, student-directed design, and computational thinking. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 11(3), 218–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554480X.2016.1182437
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Visscher-Voerman, I., & Gustafson, K. L. (2004). Paradigms in the theory and practice of education and training design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(2), 69–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504840
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watson, R. (1981, October). Instructional systems development. In International Congress for Individualized Instruction, Australia. EDRS Publication ED, 209–239.
   Google Scholar
• Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wing, J. M. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical Transactions. Series A, Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, 366(1881), 3717–3725. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2008.0118
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yadav, A., Zhou, N., Mayfield, C., Hambrusch, S., & Korb, J. T. (2011). Introducing computational thinking in education courses [Paper presentation]. The 42nd ACM Technical Symposium, March 13-20). Proceedings of on Computer science education (pp. 465–470). https://doi.org/10.1145/1953163.1953297
   Google Scholar
• Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods. SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• York, C. S., & Ertmer, P. A. (2016). Examining instructional design principles applied by experienced designers in practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 29(2), 169–192. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.21220
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar