Content area
While teachers and leaders agree on the merit of elementary computer science (CS) instruction, perceived obstacles of time and expertise constrain implementation. Integrating CS with content areas represents a meaningful, accessible, sustainable, and scalable pathway for CS access for all students. Our suite of unit-planning tools progresses through foci on CS connections, unpacking, instructional resources, assessment, and supports and meaning. A template with matched sets of checklists and rubrics define high-quality attributes for feedback and reflection. Teachers (n = 49) created units across content areas, showing proof-of-concept for CS-novice elementary classroom teachers as designers of CS-embedded curricula.
ABSTRACT
While teachers and leaders agree on the merit of elementary computer science (CS) instruction, perceived obstacles of time and expertise constrain implementation. Integrating CS with content areas represents a meaningful, accessible, sustainable, and scalable pathway for CS access for all students. Our suite of unit-planning tools progresses through foci on CS connections, unpacking, instructional resources, assessment, and supports and meaning. A template with matched sets of checklists and rubrics define high-quality attributes for feedback and reflection. Teachers (n = 49) created units across content areas, showing proof-of-concept for CS-novice elementary classroom teachers as designers of CS-embedded curricula.
COMPUTER SCIENCE FOR YOUNG LEARNERS
Early adopters, champions, and innovators in computer science (CS) education have made impressive progress in promoting the accessibility of CS to young learners. The need for early engagement with CS has been supported through the development of learning progressions (Computer Science Teachers Association [CSTA] & Association for Computing Machinery [ACM], 2012), standards (CSTA, 2017), curricula (Code.org, 2022), and professional learning standards (International Society for Technology in Education [ISTE], 2018). Tracking the growth in access to CS instruction has been a focus in the CS movement (Code.org, 2023a), yet gaps in capacity and access persist and exacerbate educational inequities (Santo et al., 2019). Tracking access to CS for the youngest learners is complicated by the variety of implementation approaches and the lack of easily-tracked metrics such as dedicated course sections or participation in AP testing. Shaped by thought leaders in academia and industry, the case for CS often relies on a discourse of employment opportunity and economic vitality. With the youngest learners, families and educators rightly have an interest in more proximate outcomes. What elementary schools may lack in typical talking points and implementation metrics they more than make up for with their richness and possibility for innovation and connection.
Integrating Computer Science
Foremost among the tantalizing organizational affordances of elementary school is the typical self-contained classroom with its built-in potential for CS curriculum integration. The connections and applications of CS with other content areas have been explored to promising effects in various grade bands (Fisler et al., 2021; Yang et al., 2021) with the potential to deepen meaning, rigor, and authenticity for both CS learning outcomes and the target content area. While the elementary classroom generalist teacher is positioned to make organic connections, they also face challenges as teachers of CS. They have many curriculum areas to attend to and may have limited background, interest, and self-efficacy in CS (Karl, 2011). Teacher flexibility and teacher autonomy have been constrained in the high-stakes era as districts adopt highly structured programs and pacing guides to align with accountability schemes and place greater emphasis on tested content areas (Crocco & Costigan, 2007).
Faced with this dilemma of "making room" for CS, STEM, and science in a crowded, high-stakes K-5 curriculum, many administrators have looked to specialists and other structures outside of the self-contained classroom (Banilower et al., 2018; Levy et al., 2016). However enthusiastic the individual educator, these "specials" structures pose challenges to instruction like limited contact time, large numbers of students, students missing instruction due to provided services, and limited instructional oversight and coordination (Hebert et al., 2017; Marco-Bujosa & Levy, 2016; Mills et al., 2020; Ronan, 2023). Curriculum integration offers a different path-by surfacing natural connections between CS and other areas classroom generalists are already responsible for, integrated CS becomes more accessible for teachers and more meaningful for all.
CS integration is a burgeoning topic across K-12 and higher education, generating a new subfield called CS+X, in which X stands for another content area. From interdisciplinary undergraduate degrees to CS-integrated secondary curricula, the map of published CS integrations across the academic disciplines and grade bands is lighting up. While initial ventures locate CS in the STEM neighborhood, new frontiers in the humanities and applied fields abound. Researchers and practitioners are exploring K-5 possibilities (Howard, 2019; McGill et al., 2023), and CS curriculum leader Code.org has added a collection of CS "connections" modules (Code.org, 2023b) to their K-5 offering of digital tools. Williams (2021) elaborates cross-content ideas for K-5 lessons that address a variety of subject areas, including but not limited to reading, math, music, and art. The emerging catalog of CS+X lessons may spark inspiration, yet important gaps to achieving integration persist. First, development at the scale of individual lessons tends to be additive rather than transformative. Further, the connections made by CS-expert curriculum designers working from standards may not meet the very contextually-driven needs of teachers. School priorities, student needs and interests, and adopted curriculum programs all set the parameters for defining CS connections that have the powers of stickiness, acceptance, and integration.
An alternative is to support elementary teachers in forming their own CS connections within topics and curricula they already teach. This approach has its own challenges and questions: What tools and supports would elementary teachers need to engage in this work of designing CS-embedded units? What knowledge and skills would they bring and develop? Would they be successful? What kinds of connections between CS and other content areas would they identify and explore? In this chapter we share our process design, as analyzed through the lenses of design and computational thinking. First, we explore the conceptual design of curriculum planning tools, highlighting the unique opportunities and challenges inherent in scaffolding the design of CS-integrated units. Second, we inquire as to whether our tools were successfully used by CS-novice elementary teachers, as seen through their feedback and products.
METHODS
Project Context and Participants
The development of curriculum-integration processes and tools was critical to the overall vision of Project {FUTURE}, a multi-state grant-funded project to build capacity and expand access to CS in K-5 through CS-embedded units. Our goal in this project was to support teacher development and implementation of scalable, integrated curriculum units to teach CS topics alongside another content area. The Project {FUTURE} team recruited and partnered with schools (n= 28) in two states, Connecticut and Wisconsin. Across 5 years, Project {FUTURE} engaged all K-5 faculty (n = 798) in CS-focused professional learning and offered the more intensive curriculum development experience to a smaller cohort (n= 49) drawn from across the partner schools. The professional learning program occurred in parallel in the two states, with our contact time purposefully scheduled in separate weeks so that we could share personnel and insights across workshops.
The elementary teachers who embarked on the unit development process in Project {FUTURE} represent a range of classroom roles and years of experience (Ronan et al., 2023). With background and preparation as classroom generalists, assignments at the time of the collaboration included classroom teacher, special educator, library media specialist, math interventionist, and teacher of technology as a special-area subject. The majority (75%) had six or more years of teaching experience at the time of the study. Whether magnet or traditional, located in small or large districts, all partner schools served a high-need, urban student population.
Data Collection and Analysis
Project {FUTURE}'s unit development process mapped onto our 2-year professional learning program. Each year, teachers attended a 1-week summer intensive as well as a fall and spring Saturday session. These summer intensives provided the bulk of the contact time with teachers and were the focus of data collection efforts. As partners in the process, teachers shared feedback and suggestions about the curriculum tools and process informally during professional-learning sessions. Real-time teacher questions to us as session facilitators were another source of information about how the tools were being interpreted and used. More formally, teachers completed questionnaires about the professional learning program at the beginning and end of each summer intensive. We developed items for the questionnaires to probe teacher beliefs and perceptions of the purpose, process, and tools for CS-embedded curriculum development. Selections from complete survey sets (n = 19) are included herein.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK: DESIGN THINKING AND COMPUTATIONAL THINKING
We employed a conceptual framework to shape and analyze the design of both the curriculum tools and the teachers' development process. Design thinking (DT) is a conceptual framework applicable across a broad range of creative pursuits, generally consisting of the stages empathize, define, ideate, prototype, and test (Brown, 2010). Computational thinking (CT) similarly cuts across domains and has been elaborated as a domain of CS education (Wing, 2006). CT includes such concepts as decomposition, pattern recognition, algorithms, and abstraction. We used these thinking tools to guide our approach to the central challenge defined by our project: to support groups of elementary teachers as designers of curriculum units interweaving and integrating CS learning outcomes with other locally-defined, high-priority learning outcomes. We embrace a layered approach-creating curricula that develop students' DT naturally requires the teachers to develop these dispositions as well (Sawch, 2013). Likewise, as the developers and facilitators of the process, we have the opportunity to model DT and CT dispositions to the teachers as we launch and refine the tools alongside them. Like models for DT and CT, our process was iterative and nonsequential, yet we will use DT and CT language (e.g., empathize, define, ideate, etc.) in the sections below to (a) give structure to our process and (b) provide a case for the applicability of these thinking tools in the design of curriculum-focused professional learning.
FINDINGS
Empathize
Research- and experience-informed empathy was an important starting point in the design of the curriculum development process. What relevant assets, concerns, skills, and fears would teachers bring to this work? The classroom teacher population in our partner schools was expected to have minimal prior experience with CS. An initial capacity-building stage of Project {FUTURE} introduced CS curriculum through workshops on Code, org's CS fundamentals (Code.org, 2022). Breaking through fears and stereotypes about who belongs in CS was a focus, alongside general ideas about domains of CS learning and appropriate CS pedagogy for young learners.
While the capacity-building phase built background knowledge teachers would need to teach CS lessons, it is important to draw a distinction between mobilizing existing lessons and developing new CS connections and accompanying curriculum. Positioning teachers as designers required a different empathetic analysis as to their funds and gaps in knowledge and their perceptions about what would work in their schools. What are their "must-haves" when it comes to curriculum? We imagined a subtle dance towards innovation and boundary-pushing, with teachers in a leading role thinking about what will work for them, what will be possible for their students, and what will be allowable in their institutional context. While we expected our participating teachers to be novices in CS, we expected them to be otherwise well-versed in learning standards and curriculum design, savvy with institutional politics, and thereby poised to be tempered radicals (Carlone et al., 2010) for CS, if we could ignite their passion for teaching it.
Define
Next, it was important to form a consensus regarding what we wanted to accomplish and the parameters, objectives, and constraints that would define our process and its products. For a CS-embedded unit to become institutionalized as a core feature of curriculum, the product needed to be expressed and elaborated in a format familiar to the target content area and aligned with district curriculum mapping expectations. Consensus practices for curriculum development in our context include standards alignment (CSTA, 2017; Martin-Kniep, 2000), backward design (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005), universal design for learning ([UDL]; Meyer et al., 2014), and culturally sustaining pedagogy (Paris, 2012). Curriculum tools for CSembedded units should reflect these elements-both to support high-quality design and to support uptake into established systems.
We believed the opportunity to engage in a creative process (Romeike, 2007) would be an asset to participation and therefore did not want to constrain the selections of topics in the content areas or CS. While they were coached to consider locally defined, high-priority learning outcomes, teachers were given the freedom to explore and select any CS integration that would be relevant and applicable to them. A layer of explicit alignment with social-emotional learning was requested for inclusion in each CS-embedded unit. While the unit tools would specifically prompt for CS integration, they would be neutral regarding the partnering content area. A constraint that we needed to design around was teachers' time and attention. Units would be developed across our 2-year professional learning program. Progress through the unit tools would form the core of the professional learning program.
Ideate
Following in the tradition of understanding by design ([UbD]; Wiggins & McTighe, 2005), we wanted the curriculum planning tools to guide teachers through a series of foci to support quality design and make the work less overwhelming. This approach also reflects the computational thinking idea of "decomposition," breaking a larger problem into smaller parts. We wanted teachers to reflect and self-assess, with a targeted feedback process as they progressed through these phases. Lastly, we wanted the design of the tools to account for the iterative and non-linear nature of the design process. So, while there would be a focus for each stage, the tools should support teachers in looking ahead and revisiting as they converse and innovate. Our ideation produced defined phases for curriculum planning: making connections, unpacking, instructional resources, assessment, and supports and meaning.
In the "making connections" phase, we began with the core insight required to enter the unit-planning process: a logical connection between CS and a target content area. While there were many CS+X potential matches, only some matches would meet teachers' curricular needs and grade-level standards. Standards provided guidance around developmentally appropriate skills and topics. As such, our design process began with standards alignment. We wanted teachers to think about the embedded unit as a revision or transformation of an existing unit, rather than something additive. We leveraged the computational thinking concept of "pattern recognition" to identify typical patterns of CS+X integrations, comparing the extent of interdependence and the timing of instruction in each area. Our professional learning program would need to support teachers in recognizing integration patterns in the samples they encountered and in their own process. Another aspect of computational thinking is "abstraction," the ability to define the essential elements of a situation while recognizing other elements as nonessential details. To succeed at curriculum unit transformation, our teacher designers would need to form an abstraction of their current curriculum, distinguishing essential features (e.g., delivering on standards) from non-essential features (e.g., the particular context of their current performance task). To support abstraction, we needed to anticipate the teachers' key thinking moves. Emphasizing curriculum standards in the first phase established standards-alignment as a key lens for determining the essential elements on which their CS-embedded units would need to deliver.
Next teachers moved into the "unpacking" phase, with its categories for vocabulary, concepts, skills, practices, dispositions, and social emotional learning (SEL) targets, as well as learning objectives for both CS and the target content area. This phase was itself a decomposition process, generating lists as teachers unpacked bigger ideas into their components. The exploration of SEL learning targets aligned with this stage's focus on practices and dispositions.
A UbD process would suggest that assessment design would come next, before the selection and development of instructional resources. This is one area where we felt CS and CS-integration pursuits ought to differ. Due to the immense reliance on pre-created digital tools for CS instruction, these tools need to be surveyed earlier in the design process as they set contexts for instruction. So, rather than sending teachers directly into contextladen assessment design, they entered the third focus, "unit context and instructional resources." In this section, teachers survey relevant existing resources in both CS and the target content area with an eye toward remixing and adapting materials, including those designed for different-aged students. The exploration of existing resources prepares them to build an initial storyline outline for their lessons. Teachers examine what makes a topic worthwhile, such as real world connections, enduring understandings, and essential questions (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005).
Next teachers progress to the assessment design phase with its focus on conceptualizing the culminating student product or performance. Teachers elaborate evaluation criteria and sources of evidence. To support formative assessment, they consider key checkpoints in understanding and skill development for both the CS and target content learning objectives so they can create opportunities for practice and feedback.
The final focus area is "supports and meaning." While beliefs and strategies in this area ought to influence teacher thinking throughout the design, this phase made these principles an explicit focus. Teachers checked and refined their unit plans through the lenses of accessibility and equity, using techniques of differentiation (Tomlinson, 2000) and culturally-sustaining pedagogy (Paris, 2012) under the framework of universal design for learning (Meyer et al., 2014). During this phase, teachers would go back to earlier stages to articulate supports and opportunities for differentiation as well as edit examples and contexts to be more responsive and sustaining.
Prototype
To support these design phases, we created a suite of planning tools. Revisiting empathy, we imagined the process teachers would experience. What kinds of documents and language would be familiar to them? What kinds of supports and structure would benefit them? This led us to create prototypes of our design guide, unit template, checklists for each phase, and rubrics for each phase. Reflecting the computational thinking concept of "algorithms," we designed a repeatable and scalable process wherein the teachers would draft in the template, reflect via the checklists, receive expert feedback according to the rubrics, and revise back in the template. We color-coded the phases and used language and structure consistently to provide an aesthetically cohesive experience. This aesthetic continuity helps teachers navigate and orient across documents, recognize when a shift in focus has occurred, and match up a template section with its corresponding checklist and rubric. Selections and consolidated views are provided in this chapter, with the full set of documents available for use at the Project {FUTURE} website (www.projectfuturecs.org).
Design Guide
The first tool developed was the unit design guide. It was important to balance an overall sequential progression through the phases with iteration across them. To promote this balance, we created the design guide which centers each phase in sequence while prompting teachers to look ahead and reflect back. For example, in the "making connections" phase, teachers were encouraged via color-coded prompts in the design guide to brainstorm initial ideas about culminating student products (assessment) as well as initial ideas about supporting engagement and differentiation (supports and meaning).
Unit Template
Standardizing a template provided a common language for professional learning and a common format for readability and consistency of design elements upon completion. To guide the development process, we created a template with prompting text in each field. For example, in the evaluation criteria section of the assessment phase, the prompting text reads, "What are the key features, dimensions, or outcomes of a successful product?" Sometimes the prompting text was a guiding question and other times it was a description or direction. Figure 1.1 is a sample from the unit template showing the design categories and prompts for phases one and two.
Checklists
As teachers completed each phase of the template, they were invited to review the matched checklist as a self- and group-reflection. Checklist items elicited either "yes" or "no" responses based on whether teachers had attended to the requested elements of process. Review according to the checklist ensured the unit-in-development was ready to receive meaningful feedback via the rubric for that phase. Figure 1.2 provides the consolidated checklist prompts from across the phases.
Rubrics
Lastly, each phase had a corresponding rubric to communicate expectations and aspirations for quality (Martin-Kniep, 2000) through 3-4 key criteria in each domain. The performance levels were described as "getting started," "in development," and "accomplished." These headings emphasized the progression and growth of units across time through iterative feedback and revision. In the teacher-facing versions, there was an empty box for reviewer feedback below each set of descriptors. Figure 1.3 provides a consolidated view of the rubric materials.
Test
After internal review from our Project {FUTURE} teammates, the suite of tools was ready to be tested in the unit-design portion of our professional learning program. Our premise was that the structure of the summer institute should provide the opportunity to work through each stage of the curriculum development process. The color coding and language were carried through into the design of presentation materials and session agendas. While the curriculum tools were set, we faced a number of decisions about how to mobilize them-how we would push out digital versions, whether to share them all at once, and how we would manage the formation and collaborations of professional learning communities (PLCs) for each specific unit. Starting on the first afternoon of the summer institute, teachers selfformed into PLCs based on grade level and content topics of interest. Using the design guide and template, teachers embarked on the design of their units. A typical daily agenda would include an introduction to the essential elements and descriptors of a given phase and an overview of some examples and resources to support that phase, with the majority of time available for PLC collaboration with support from the Project {FUTURE} team.
After self-assessment with checklists and resulting revisions, each PLC submitted their work-in-progress for review according to the rubric for that phase. This review supported a sense of progress, momentum, and accomplishment for each PLC. We decided to assign each member of our Project {FUTURE} team to a particular rubric based on expertise. In addition to providing consistent, high-quality feedback, this model ensured each PLC would ultimately gain a variety of perspectives from feedback providers. A downside of this model was the temporary inundation for that team member if groups were similarly paced in their progress through the stages. Feedback was provided on the rubric through ratings and narrative and directly on the unit template using comments. Revisions by PLCs following feedback showed progress in unit performance according to our rubrics as our team was able to suggest resources, refinements, and considerations that were specific to the content and contexts of each unit. In this way, expert feedback productively complemented the content domain neutrality of the curriculum development tools.
Managing the Tools
True to the spirit of prototyping, we made some revisions to the tools following their initial use, resulting in the refined tools shared herein. We adjusted how we shared documents, setting the design guide for use as a reference and steering teachers to collaborate and record their ideas in the unit template. This attended to the challenge of version confusion among the collaborating teachers. Teachers' pre-existing familiarity with digital collaborative documents and the ability to link out to resources and references was an asset to the unit development process. We relied on these skills as we transitioned to asynchronous work after summer institutes. Creating comments and tagging users in those comments were successful in garnering teacher attention and response in the asynchronous environment. More broadly, the sequence of phases and the algorithmic process for each stage gave structure and a sense of progress to ongoing work. We were able to build milestones and incentives around this common structure, which helped keep our teachers on track amidst the many demands on their attention.
Teacher Feedback and Products
Overall, our strategy to support the development of CS-embedded units through these tools has been successful. In the program evaluation surveys, all teacher responses (n = 19) indicated agreement or strong agreement that the tools had been successful in supporting their unit design process. This sample represented teachers from across both states, varying grade levels, and varying background experience with learning and teaching CS. One participant described them as "well organized and easy to use." Some PLCs adapted the template structure to encode planned variation within their PLC. For example, one teacher in the PLC would implement the unit individually while another would trade off lessons with a specialist.
Another teacher commented on the congruence between the unit design tools and the professional learning experience: "This week was very well organized! The 'big picture' was shared right away, and all activities complimented that vision." As a system, the curriculum development tools have lateral alignment across the tools in terms of language, format, and aesthetics. The decomposition into stages also provides a hierarchical structure, where teachers can gain the "big picture" view of the overall process and then gain a more detailed view of each stage in turn. Teachers were able to traverse these stages and tools with minimal logistical support, meaning they could devote their bandwidth in managing complexity to the unit design task itself.
We considered the autonomy and creativity afforded to participating teachers a key aspect of Project {FUTURE}, built into the curriculum planning tools. Teacher responses highlighted this as well:
I think sometimes we box ourselves in-like computer science and math fit. Okay, check. I love how it's the freedom, the freedom of Project {FUTURE}. It was, "take whatever you want, whatever you think would be worthy." We don't get a lot of that opportunity, at least in my district. I'm doing a reading unit. This works here! We could do problem-solving for reading. We could do theme and character development using computer science. So I think it's great. K-5 Technology Teacher, CT
Indeed, the units developed include CS integrations with mathematics, reading, writing, science, social studies, music, art, and social emotional learning. Kindergarteners will create algorithms and practice counting strategies as they guide a figure through a maze, while first graders will use similar programming skills to map emotions in scenarios. Fourth graders will modify variables to program an erosion simulation while fifth graders will research applications of artificial intelligence relevant to social issues in their communities. These are just a few of the topics for CS-embedded units catalyzed and supported through the curriculum tools.
INSIGHTS AND IMPLICATIONS
From our perspective as the leaders of Project {FUTURE}'s professional learning, we saw groups of teachers make steady and positive progress in the already complex and creative task of curriculum development, further complicated by multi-school/district collaborations and CS-integration. They navigated resources, asked questions, demonstrated flexibility, sought feedback, and persevered through design sessions. While it was difficult initially for some teachers to adjust to the mindset of curriculum innovation, design, and authorship, teachers rose to the occasion of the novelty, complexity, and rigor of the design work.
A supportive aspect of the unit development tools was the prominence of general principles of curriculum design, as this was expected to be an area of expertise among our teacher population. While CS was relatively new, the structure and vocabulary of curriculum design were familiar. CS prompts were presented in parallel with a more familiar target content area. Our elementary teachers were able to gain ideas and inspiration from CS integration projects designed for secondary and university students, implicitly adjusting expectations for scope, complexity, and support. The spread of CS integrations across the content areas and across domains of CS standards was organic, driven by the teachers' perceptions of natural connections and applications of CS. As a collection, this approach produced a vivid patchwork across grade levels and content areas, showing the potential for CS to "stick" and belong across the K-5 curriculum. Teachers showed their savvy in perceiving local priorities and local opportunities. For example, two PLCs took inspiration from the template's prompts for SET learning targets to make SEE the primary target content area for integration. This is a particularly fruitful yet unconventional pairing, responsive to the current surge for SEE instruction as a local priority and the teachers' perception of relative instructional flexibility in this newly incorporated portion of the elementary school day.
The teachers in Project {FUTURE} had limited experience with learning and teaching CS yet were successful in working through the planning tools to access CS standards, pedagogy, and curriculum to surface meaningful CS integration topics at the K-5 level. The pool of potentially worthwhile ideas for K-5 CS+X units far exceeds the reach of the initial batch of teacherdesigned units, and we invite others to join in this work. In addition to supporting the development of curriculum beyond Project {FUTURE}'s initial collection, the curriculum development tools could also be repurposed for the analysis and review of CS+X curriculum materials. The checklists and rubrics are particularly suited for this purpose. Options to review units, implement already-designed units, or create new CS-embedded units through the curriculum tools provides multiple points of entry for professional learning in CS+X for both pre-service and in-service teachers.
Project {FUTURE} has been designed to support the development of elementary teachers from CS-novices into self-efficacious designers and teachers of CS-embedded units. Figure 1.4 is a conceptual overview of teacher development throughout Project {FUTURE}. The suite of Project {FUTURE}curriculum tools successfully supported teachers as they became designers. It bears mentioning, of course, that the teachers participating in Project {FUTURE}'s unit development are a small representation of the faculty of partner schools. We recognize that not all teachers have been developed to the level of becoming designers of CS-embedded units. However, we are extremely encouraged that many elementary teachers have achieved this, including those who began as CS-novices. We are also optimistic about the prospects for scalability and sustainability of developed units, as implementation is even more accessible compared with the initial design process.
Examining the potential for CS integration is a new frontier in the mobilization of technology in education, which should be shaped by needs, opportunities, and stakeholders across the curriculum. As previous eras of technology education attest, an approach which confines CS to the purview of specialists is unlikely to persist while underestimating the value and broad applicability of CS. The potential for CS-embedded units to sustain and even enhance student outcomes while providing access to CS education is an important matter for further study. The ability of CS-embedded curricula to demonstrate quality, rigor, standards-alignment, and effectiveness will be essential in validating and institutionalizing CS-embedded units as broadly accessible curriculum experiences.
REFERENCES
Banilower, E. R., Smith, P. S., Malzahn, К. A., Plumley, C. L., Gordon, E. M., & Hayes, M. L. (2018). Report of the 2018 NSSME+. Horizon Research.
Brown, T. (2010). Change 1л design. Lian Jing/Tsai Fong Books, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00806.x
Carlone, H. B., Haun-Frank, J., & Kimmel, S. C. (2010). Tempered radicals: Elementary teachers' narratives of teaching science within and against prevailing meanings of schooling. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 2010(b), 941-965. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/sll422-010-9282-6
Code.org. (2022). Computer science fundamentals, https://code.org/educate/ curriculum/elementary-school
Code.org. (2023a). 2023 State of computer science education, https://advocacy.code .org/ stateofcs
Code.org. (2023b). Computer science connections, https://code.org/educate/csc
Computer Science Teachers Association. (2017). CSTA K12 computer science standards. https://www.csteachers.org/page/standards
Computer Science Teachers Association and the Association for Computing Machinery, Inc. (2012). Computer science K-8: Building a strong foundation, https:// csteachers.org/ documents/en-us/25b0b43f-0817-4c08-9210-Ha96f2blc7d/l/
Crocco, M. S., & Costigan, A. T. (2007). The narrowing of curriculum and pedagogy in the age of accountability urban educators speak out. Urban Education, 42(6), 512-535.
Fisler, K., Schanzer, E., Weimar, S., Fetter, A., Renninger, K. A., Krishnamurthi, S., Politz, J. G., Lerner, B., Poole, P., & Koerner, C. (2021). Evolving a K-12 curriculum for integrating computer science into mathematics [Virtual event], 59-65. In Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, Association for Computing Machinery, https://doi.org/ 10.1145/3408877.3432546
Herbert, S., Xu, L., & Kelly, L. (2017). The changing roles of science specialists during a capacity building program for primary school science. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 42(3), 1-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.14221/ajte .2017v42n3.1
Howard, N. R. (2019). EdTech leaders' beliefs: How are K-5 teachers supported with the integration of computer science in K-5 classrooms? Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 24(2), 208-217.
International Society for Technology in Education. (2018). ISTE standards for educators: Computational thinking competencies, https://www.iste.org/standards/ computational-thinking
Karl, L. C. (2011). Elementary teachers perceptions of technology proficiencies and motivation to integrate technology in school curriculi (Publication No. 970) [Doctoral dissertation, Walden University], https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/ dissertations/970
Levy, A. J., Jia, Y, Marco-Bujosa, L., Gess-J., & Pasquale, M. (2016). Science specialists or classroom teachers: Who should teach elementary science? Science Educator, 25(1), 10-21.
Marco-Bujosa, L. M., 8c Levy, A. J. (2016). Caught in the balance: An organizational analysis of science teaching in schools with elementary science specialists. Science Education, 100(6), 983-1008. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21239
Martin-Kniep, G. O. (2000). Becoming a better teacher: Eight innovations that work. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
McGill, M. M., Thigpen, L., & Mabie, A. (2023, September). Emergingpractices for integrating computer science into existingK-5 subjects in the United States [Conference proceedings]. 18th WiPSCE Conference on Primary and Secondary Computing Education Research, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1145/3605468.3609759
Meyer, A., Rose, D. H., & Gordon, D. (2014). Universal design for learning: Theory and practice. CAST Publishing.
Mills, R., Bourke, T, & Siostrom, E. (2020). Complexity and contradiction: Disciplinary expert teachers in primary science and mathematics education. Teaching and Teacher Education 59(103010), 1-12. https://doi.Org/10.1016/j .tate.2019.103010
Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and practice. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93-97. https://doi .org/10.3102/0013189x12441244
Romeike, R. (2007). Three drivers for creativity in computer science education [Conference proceedings]. Informatics, Mathematics and ICT: A "golden triangle."
Ronan, D. M. (2023). Science as a "special": Navigating the role of science specialist in urban elementary schools. School Science and Mathematics, 123(6), 220-233. https://doi.org/10.llll/ssm.12597
Ronan, D., Brylów, D., Berner, M., Crespo, S., Williams, H., Thorp, C., & Erdil, D. C. (2023, March). Complexities in computer science teaching attitudes and beliefs: Findings of a baseline study of elementary school educators [Conference proceedings], 66-72. 54th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 1. https://doi.org/10.1145/3545945.3569746
Santo, R., DeLyser, L. A., Ahn, J., Pellicone, A., Aguiar, J., & Wortei-London, S. (2019). Equity in the who, how and what of computer science education: KI2 school district conceptualizations of equity in "CS for all" initiatives [Conference Publication], 1-8. Research on Equity and Sustained Participation in Engineering, Computing, and Technology (RESPECT), Minneapolis, MN. https://doi .org/10.1109/RESPECT46404.2019.8985901
Sawch, D. J. (2013). Educating for 21st century global capacities: Bridging the gap between intention and practice-a multiple case study (Publication No. 3590396) [Doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University]. ProQuest Dissertation & Theses.
Tomlinson, C. (2000). Differentiation of instruction in the elementary grades. ERIC Digest. https://files.eric.ed.gov/ fulltext/ED443572.pdf
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Williams, H. (2021). No fear coding: Computational thinking across the K-5 classroom. International Society for Technology in Education.
Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33-35. https://doi.org/10.1145/1118178.1118215
Yang, D., Baek, Y, Ching, Y, Swanson, S., Chittoori, B., & Wang, S. (2021). Infusing computational thinking in an integrated STEM curriculum: User reactions and lessons learned. European Journal of STEM Education, 6(1), 04. https:// doi.org/10.20897/ejsteme/9560
Copyright Information Age Publishing 2024