See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/316446592

Computational Thinking in Teacher Education

Chapter · April 2017

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-52691-1_13

CITATIONS READS

246 8,911

4 authors, including:

Aman Yadav Sarah Gretter

Michigan State University Michigan State University
158 PUBLICATIONS 7,241 CITATIONS 21 PUBLICATIONS 1,141 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Jon Good
Michigan State University
17 PUBLICATIONS 1,566 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Aman Yadav on 20 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Computational Thinking in Teacher Education

Aman Yadav, Sarah Gretter, Jon Good, and Tamika McLean

Abstract Computational thinking (CT) has been offered as a cross-disciplinary set

of mental skills that are drawn from the discipline of computer science. Existing
literature supports the inclusion of CT within the K-12 curriculum, within multiple
subjects, and from primary grades upward. The use of computers as a context for
CT skills is often possible, yet care must be taken to ensure that CT is not conflated
with programming or instructional technology, in general. Research had suggested
that instructing preservice teachers in the use of CT can help them develop a more
accurate and nuanced understandings of how it can be applied to the classroom.
This chapter reports results from a study about preservice teachers’ conceptions of
CT and how it can be implemented within their classrooms. Results suggested that
preservice teachers with no previous exposure to CT have a surface level under-
standing of computational thinking. Participants largely defined CT in terms of
problem-solving, logical thinking, and other types of thinking and often requiring
the use of computers. The chapter offers implications for teacher educators to embed
computational thinking in preservice education courses through educational tech-
nology as well as content specific methods courses.

Keywords Computational thinking • Preservice teachers • Teacher education

Introduction

Recently, computational thinking (CT) has been advocated as a twenty-first-century

skill that students should possess in order to develop problem-solving skills using
principles from computer science (Selby, 2015). Wing (2006) described computa-
tional thinking as “solving problems, designing systems, and understanding human
behavior, by drawing on the concepts fundamental to computer science” (p. 33).

A. Yadav (*) • S. Gretter • J. Good • T. McLean

Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA
e-mail: ayadav@msu.edu; sgretter@msu.edu; goodjona@msu.edu; mcleant2@msu.edu

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017 205

P.J. Rich, C.B. Hodges (eds.), Emerging Research, Practice, and Policy on
Computational Thinking, Educational Communications and Technology: Issues
and Innovations, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-52691-1_13
206 A. Yadav et al.

Since then researchers have suggested that computational thinking involves a

number of subskills, including breaking down complex problems into familiar ones
(problem decomposition), developing algorithmic solutions to the problems (algo-
rithms), and capturing the fundamental simplicity of a problem to develop quick
heuristics that might lead to a solution (abstraction) (Barr & Stephenson, 2011;
Grover & Pea, 2013; Wing, 2008; Yadav et al., 2014). Furthermore, given that com-
putation is a crucial driver of innovation and productivity in today’s technology-­rich
society (Selby, 2015), it is imperative that students engage in computing ideas at the
K-12 level (CSTA & ISTE, 2011). In order for computational thinking to become
part of K-12 curriculum, there is a critical need to prepare teachers who are well
trained to integrate computational thinking in their everyday pedagogical activities
(Lye & Koh, 2014). This chapter discusses computational thinking, its implementa-
tion in K-12 classrooms, and the role of CT in teacher education. We present results
from a study that surveyed 134 preservice teachers about their views of computa-
tional thinking and their role in teaching computational thinking in K-12 class-
rooms. The purpose of the survey was to understand preservice teachers’ perceptions
of computational thinking in their specific subject areas and assess how they would
implement it in their future classroom. In light of the computational thinking com-
petencies put forth by the Computer Science Teachers Association (CSTA) and the
International Society for Technology Education (ISTE), we discuss the need for
training preservice teachers and provide recommendations for integrating computa-
tional thinking into teacher preparation programs.

Computational Thinking in K-12

Wing (2006) discussed that while computing ideas have traditionally been a subject
of interest in computer science for decades, advances in computing technology have
changed the landscape of the skills needed for a twenty-first-century economy.
Wing (2008) envisioned that computational thinking would play an instrumental
role in virtually every field and profession in the near future and should therefore
become an integral part of children’s education. It is important to note that compu-
tational thinking does not exclusively equate with computer science or with
­programming, but that rather, it represents key computer science practices that can
be applied to a variety of problem-solving tasks. Denning (2009) argued that
­computational thinking has a venerable history in not only computer science but all
sciences. He discussed how computational thinking has been around since the 1950s
as a­ lgorithmic thinking, which means “a mental orientation to formulating ­problems
as conversions of some input to an output and looking for algorithms to perform the
conversions” (Denning, p.28). Thus, computational thinking can be considered a
problem-solving toolset that goes beyond information technology (IT) fluency to
apply computing principles such as abstraction, decomposition, generalization,
pattern recognition, and algorithmic and parallel thinking (Astrachan, Hambrusch,
Peckham, & Settle, 2009; Selby, 2015).
Computational Thinking in Teacher Education 207

The Computer Science Teachers Association (CSTA) and the International

Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) (2011) suggested that computational
thinking offers students an opportunity to develop problem-solving and critical
thinking skills by harnessing the power of computing. Developing a computational
thinking mindset would allow students to create, design, and develop technologies,
tools, or systems that will be instrumental in advancing any field in the future. While
computational thinking does not equate to programming, becoming a computational
thinker does mean understanding today’s digital tools in order to solve challenges
from sciences to the humanities (Bundy, 2007). Not only can computational think-
ing prepare students for computing jobs, it also prepares them to think outside the
box and use problem-solving skills with or without the support of computers in
different areas of their personal, academic, and professional lives (CSTA & ISTE,
2011; Selby, 2015). Recently, a variety of computational thinking initiatives are
being implemented in K-12 classrooms to expose students to CT concepts and prac-
tices. These initiatives range from single exposure to CT through hour of code type
activities to the design of whole curriculum, such as the College Board’s Advanced
Placement (AP) computer science principles course.
Additionally, current educational reforms and standards reflect the relevance of
computational thinking for K-12 students (Gretter & Yadav, 2016). For example, the
Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) includes using computational thinking
as one of the key scientific and engineering practices that students should be exposed
to in K-12 science classrooms. Practices such as the use of computational tools to
model complex systems through simulations and visualizing data to examine pat-
terns provide an opportunity to introduce K-12 students to computational thinking
ideas in science classrooms. While these examples showcase how to integrate com-
putational thinking in a content area, the College Board is launching an AP CS
Principles course in Fall 2016 based on six computational thinking practices (see
College Board (2014) for a detailed discussion of the practices). Some organiza-
tions have also promoted computational thinking material and curricula for educa-
tional institutions. For example, Google developed a curriculum, CS First, to engage
students in computer science and computational thinking concepts in after-school
theme-based clubs across the country. Similarly, Code.org offers a K-12 curriculum
to expose students to the world of computing and computational thinking. Lastly,
many organizations have focused on introducing CT to traditionally underrepre-
sented groups in computer science. For example, Girls Who Code, Black Girls
Code, and La TechLa have created programs to reach girls and minorities and
encourage them to take part in CT and CS activities.
While computational thinking has been suggested as a problem-solving approach
using principles from computer science, many of the existing efforts use ­programming
tools and environments to expose students to computational thinking. Fletcher and
Lu (2009) argued that this approach might continue the misconceptions about
computer science as being equivalent to “programming.” Instead, they suggested,
“just as proficiency in basic language arts helps us to effectively communicate and
proficiency in basic math helps us to successfully quantitate, proficiency in compu-
tational thinking helps us systematically and efficiently process information and tasks”
208 A. Yadav et al.

(Fletcher & Lu, p. 23). This effort to lay foundations of CT needs to start early on in
students’ K-12 experience before they learn programming l­anguages (Fletcher &
Lu). Hence, we need to develop ways to embed ­computational thinking concepts
and practices across disciplines both with and without the ­programming context to
benefit students with varied interests.
Barr and Stephenson (2011) proposed nine core computational thinking concepts
and abilities to integrate CT concepts in K-12 classrooms across core content areas.
These core computational thinking ideas include data collection, data analysis, data
representation, problem decomposition, abstraction, algorithms and procedures,
automation, parallelization, and simulation. These computational thinking concepts
can be implemented in K-12 classrooms through digital storytelling, data collection
and analysis, and scientific investigations (Lee, Martin & Apone, 2014), creating
games (Howland & Good, 2015; Lee et al., 2014; Nickerson, Brand, & Repenning,
2015), educational robotics (Atmatzidou & Demetriadis, 2014), physics (Dwyer,
Boe, Hill, Franklin, & Harlow, 2013), visual programming languages like Scratch
or other interactive media (Brennan & Resnick, 2012; Calao, Moreno-Leon, Correa,
& Robles, 2015), and even through maker movements (Rode et al., 2015). While
computational thinking is relatively is a new concept, Mannila et al. (2014) found
that a majority of K-9 teachers from various disciplines were already practicing and
implementing CT concepts and practices in their own teaching. These implementa-
tions ranged from using of data collection, analysis, and representation to algorithm
design and writing (i.e., programming).
Additionally, in a review of 27 empirical studies about programming in K-12 and
higher education settings, Lye & Koh (2014) reported that visual programming lan-
guages were most often used in K-12 to create digital stories and games. They found
that constructionism was a common instructional strategy used by teachers, involv-
ing students to create artifacts displaying their understanding of CT concepts.
Moreover, research has also exhibited that exposing students to computational
thinking ideas also improves their problem-solving abilities and critical thinking
skills (Akcaoglu & Koehler, 2014; Calao et al., 2015; Lishinski, Yadav, Enbody, &
Good, 2016). For example, Akcaoglu & Koehler (2014) used a Scratch-based cur-
riculum to examine the influence of CT on middle school students’ problem-solving
skills as measured by a PISA problem-solving test. When compared to the control
group, the results suggested that students who participated in Scratch activities
­significantly increased their problem-solving skills, including system analysis and
design, decision-making, and troubleshooting skills. In another study, Calao et al.
(2015) embedded computational thinking in a sixth grade mathematics classroom.
Their results suggested that the intervention significantly improved students’
­understanding of mathematical processes when compared to a control group that
did not learn about computational thinking ideas in their math class.
Taken together, these policy-related and practical initiatives strongly highlight
the significance of introducing students to computational thinking in K-12 class-
rooms. However, preparing teachers to embed these concepts in their teaching or in
their specific subject areas can be a daunting task. Barr and Stephenson (2011)
highlighted that a systematic change regarding CT implementation in school could
Computational Thinking in Teacher Education 209

not be accomplished without educational policies that include teacher preparation to

help educators understand and implement CT in their teaching. Even though most
of the computational thinking initiatives we describe in this chapter underline the
necessity to train teachers in all subject areas to embed CT, little has been done to
examine the instructional, curricular, and pedagogical implications for teacher prep-
aration, particularly for preservice teachers (Lye & Koh, 2014).

Preparing Teachers for Computational Thinking Instruction

There is an increasing need for teachers to be prepared to integrate CT into their

classroom practices (Prieto-Rodriguez & Berretta, 2014). Recent efforts to expose
teachers to computational thinking have focused on both preservice teachers through
modules in existing teacher education courses (Yadav et al., 2014) as well as in-­service
teachers through professional development (Prieto-Rodriguez & Berretta, 2014).
At the in-service level, a majority of the work has involved working with teachers
through short professional development opportunities to embed computational
thinking. Blum and Cortina (2007) examined how a weekend-long workshop to
introduce teachers to computational thinking and the role of computer science in
relation to other disciplines influenced their perceptions of computer science (CS).
Results from the study suggested that teachers’ perceptions of computer science
significantly changed from being focused on CS as programming to viewing CS as
being applicable to other disciplines. Teachers reported that they not only changed
their ideas about computer science but the workshop also allowed them to present
CS in a way that would make it relevant to their students’ day-to-day lives. Similarly,
in another study Prieto-Rodriguez and Berretta (2014) focused on in-service teachers’
thinking about the nature of computer science and whether teachers’ perceptions
about computer science change after a workshop. Findings suggested that con-
necting teachers to the skills and resources needed to teach computer science and
computational thinking concepts can have a positive impact on their perceptions
of computer science.
While there has been a considerable focus on professional development for in-­
service teachers, there is limited work on how to prepare preservice teachers to
embed computational thinking in their future classrooms. In one study, Yadav et al.
(2014) introduced preservice teachers to computational thinking and how to embed
computational thinking in the K-12 classroom through a one-week module in an
introductory educational psychology course. The authors used a quasi-experimental
design to examine the effectiveness of the module on preservice teacher’s definition
of ­computational thinking and their ability to embed CT in their future classrooms.
Results from the study suggested that preservice teachers who were exposed to the
modules were significantly more likely to accurately define computational thinking
and were also more likely to agree that computational thinking could be ­implemented
in the classroom by allowing students to problem-solve (and not just by using
­computers). The results from this study are promising; however, while a one-­week
210 A. Yadav et al.

module might be enough to develop preservice teachers’ understanding of

­computational thinking, it might not provide them with enough knowledge to embed
­computational thinking in meaningful ways. We need to consider how to expose
preservice teachers to computational thinking constructs within the context of the
subject area they will teach in their future classrooms. Barr & Stephenson (2011)
recommended that in order for computational thinking to be part of every student’s
education, all preservice teacher preparation programs need to include a class on
computational thinking across the disciplines. We would argue that teacher prepara-
tion programs should go beyond one class and teach computational thinking in sub-
ject matter context of methods courses. The majority of teacher education programs
offer an introductory educational technology course, which could serve as a core
class to introduce preservice teachers to CT ideas. The teaching methods courses
could then be used to expand on preservice teachers’ understanding of computa-
tional thinking within the context of their subject area and build upon that knowl-
edge to embed CT in their future classes.
Given the calls to expand the pool of teachers who “teach” computational
thinking (Cuny, 2012; Yadav et al., 2014; Yadav, Hong, & Stephenson, 2016;
Gretter & Yadav, 2016), teacher preparation programs are critical and provide an
opportune setting to introduce future teachers to CT. However, before being able
to guide preservice teachers’ implementation of CT in their future classrooms,
we need to better understand how these student teachers think about
CT. Specifically, we need to examine how teachers view computational thinking
and its role in their classrooms given that teachers’ conceptions can significantly
influence and even stereotype students’ views about what computer scientists
do. Guzdial (2008) explained how the field of computing education research can
start looking at what non-computing students—here, the training of future
teachers—understand about computing in order for formal education to enhance
their knowledge of computing. This study, therefore, addressed the following
research questions:
1. How do preservice teachers define CT?
2. How do preservice teachers perceive the implementation of CT in their classroom?

Method
Participants
One hundred and thirty-four preservice teachers enrolled in a teacher education
program at a large Midwestern university participated in the study. The majority
of the participants (N = 95) were female, which is not surprising given the tra-
ditional demographics in teacher preparation programs are overwhelmingly
female (Ingersoll, Merrill, & Stuckey, 2014). Participants included 41 sopho-
mores, 55 juniors, and 29 seniors (nine participants did not report their year of
schooling). The average age of participants was 20.70 years old and the average
GPA was 3.34.
Computational Thinking in Teacher Education 211

Measures

In order to examine preservice teachers’ conceptions of computational thinking and

how they would embed computational thinking in their future classrooms, we utilized
an open-ended questionnaire that had previously been used by Yadav et al. (2014).
The questionnaire also included demographic question that asked participants to
identify gender, year in school, age, and GPA of the participants. There were two
open-ended questions that asked preservice teachers to explain computational think-
ing based on their prior knowledge of the concept and to share how they would
implement computational thinking in the content area that they planned to teach in
their future classrooms.

Procedure and Data Analysis

Two hundred and three preservice teachers enrolled in a teacher education course
were invited to complete the questionnaire through a web-based survey. One hun-
dred and thirty-four preservice teachers completed the survey, resulting in a response
rate of 66%, which is deemed good (Creswell, 2002). Content analysis processes
were used to code the open-ended responses. The open-ended responses were
imported into a qualitative analysis software (NVivo) and jointly coded by two cod-
ers. An emergent coding scheme was used to generate codes and develop an under-
standing of preservice teachers’ conceptions of computational thinking. For
example, when defining computational thinking, one preservice teacher responded,
“I would have to guess that you take what you know about computers and thinking
and use that knowledge on a computer.” This response was coded as “using a com-
puter.” Another preservice teacher replied with “[Computational thinking means]
you break down a problem and solve it in some logical way,” which was coded as
“problem decomposition” and “logical thinking.” When a disagreement occurred
about the appropriate code, the coders discussed until a consensus was reached. The
initial list of codes were then collapsed into o­ verarching themes that represented
their overall understanding of computational thinking and approaches to embedding
it in their classroom. Frequencies were calculated to reflect the number of partici-
pants whose responses were categorized under a particular code.

Results

The qualitative analysis of open-ended survey responses initially resulted in 51 codes,

which were collapsed into two overarching themes with three sub-themes each,
namely, (i) preservice teachers’ definitions of computational thinking and (ii) how
they would implement computational thinking in their future classrooms. The following
sections discuss these broad themes in relation to our research questions.
212 A. Yadav et al.

Defining Computational Thinking

When asked to define the concept, preservice teachers in our study discussed
computational thinking along a number of dimensions, such as defining it as
problem-­solving, logical or mathematical thinking, and using computers. We discuss
these sub-themes in detail below.

Computational Thinking Involves Problem-Solving and Logical Thinking

The most prominent theme (N = 61) that emerged from preservice teachers’ defini-
tion of CT was that it was problem-solving approach. For example, one participant
reported that “computational thinking is a way of thinking to problem-solve.”
Another preservice teacher elaborated that CT was “how you can solve problems in
a logical and certain way like in steps to break the problem down.” Preservice teach-
ers also described that computational thinking was problem-solving based on prior
knowledge, as highlighted by one participant who stated that “computational think-
ing is using what you already know to logically solve problems.”
Closely related to the problem-solving approach was the concept of logical
thinking. A number of preservice teachers (N = 36) also brought up the idea that
CT involved using logical thinking to solve problems. For example, one participant
stated that CT was “thinking logically to solve problems, using step by step
problem-­solving, and applying skills to other situations.” In a similar fashion,
another participant highlighted that “It is a way of thinking very logically, like a
computer, in a very systematic way.”
While problem-solving and logical thinking were two types of thinking that
­preservice teachers most associated with computational thinking, participants also
connected CT with a variety of other categories of thinking processes.

Computational Thinking Includes Various Types of Thinking

Participants in the study (N = 49) reported that computational thinking included

additional ways of thinking, including mathematical thinking (N = 9), algorithmic
thinking (N = 24), and computer-like thinking (N = 9). The idea of mathematical
thinking was brought up as preservice teachers described that CT required “thinking
about numbers and equations,” “doing numerical work,” and “using formulas.”
Preservice teachers also stated that computational thinking involved using step-by-­
step or systematic (i.e., algorithmic thinking) approach, which was closely related
to problem-solving and logical thinking approaches discussed above. The idea of
using algorithms was highlighted by the following quote from one preservice
teacher: “CT is going through certain steps to arrive at a logical answer.” Within this
theme, participants also discussed that computational thinking involved “breaking
down a problem into smaller sections and solving each in succession in a way/order
Computational Thinking in Teacher Education 213

that makes sense to solve the whole problem.” Moreover, participants linked CT
with the idea of “thinking like a computer.” In some instances, preservice teachers
said that CT was “a way of thinking that uses your mind like a computer,” “speaking/
thinking in a computer-like way,” or thinking about “how computers think.”
Interestingly, preservice teachers related CT not only to “thinking like a computer”
but also to using a computer as a tool.

Computational Thinking Implies Using a Computer

Emerging from preservice teachers’ definitions of computational thinking was the

use of computers as a tool to solve problems or complete tasks (N = 24). Along
these lines, participants considered computers to be an integral part of CT. For
instance, they remarked that “CT is thinking in ways that require computing” or
“using a computer to help you solve a problem you otherwise could not.” Overall,
these participants expressed that “there are many problems that are easier to solve
with computers.” In addition, preservice teachers believed that CT involved using
computers as an instrumental tool. For example, participants agreed that computa-
tional thinking involved “knowing how to use a computer to get a task done.”
Similarly, one participant stated that she associated CT with “using technology to
make tasks simpler,” while another described that “CT entails using a computer to
look up information to help you best complete your task.” In general, preservice
teachers who integrated computers in their definitions of CT saw computers as a
resource or “a means of research and data collection, a means of interpretation, a
means of convenience and ease.”
In the next section, we move from theoretical conceptions of CT to practical
applications, as we look at how preservice teachers envisioned implementing CT in
their future classrooms.

Implementing Computational Thinking in the Classroom

Preservice teachers reported that computational thinking could be implemented in a

number of ways, such as using technology in the classroom, embedding CT in core
content areas or implementing CT ideas through problem-solving. The present
section discusses preservice teachers’ conceptions of how they would incorporate
CT in their future K-12 classrooms.

Computational Thinking Can Be Embedded Through Technology

One of the prominent themes that preservice teachers brought up (N = 40) was that
they would use technology to embed their conception of computational thinking in
the classroom. These ideas were generic uses of technology to implement CT in the
214 A. Yadav et al.

classroom, as highlighted by this comment: “I would use CT to help students have

more interaction. No longer would students read a book, but they could use comput-
ers to watch video, play games and perform activities,” or, as another preservice
teacher stated, “I would use computer programs to help kids understand concepts
better.” Other general uses of technology to embed CT in the classroom included “a
smartboard in my classroom,” “online games,” “digital media,” “computer pro-
grams,” “calculators,” or “software,” for instance. Participants added that as teach-
ers, they would also use computers to provide students easy access to information.
For example, one participant stated that “I will start a class website where students
can review notes/class lectures, take practice test, and have a class message board
for homework help.” In practical terms, participants saw the use of technology as a
way for students to practice CT concepts. This could also be achieved, according to
preservice teachers, through the use of technology in a variety of classroom activi-
ties. For example, participants proposed to embed CT by having students “work on
computers for some lessons that can go at their speed and hit the area they need”;
“use keyboards to type words and use online sources to read, online media”; and
“use the computer for many projects, papers, and assignments.” Although many
preservice teachers saw CT being integrated in the classroom through technology,
others viewed problem-solving as a central aspect of such integration.

Computational Thinking Can Be Taught Through Problem-Solving

A number of preservice teachers (N = 45) in the study discussed that computational

thinking could be embedded in the classroom by teaching students how to use steps
to solve problems and that they would use problem-solving approaches to teach CT
in their future classrooms. One preservice teacher stated that she would embed CT
by having “students learn to problem-solve in the classroom.” Another participant
agreed that he would facilitate CT and “present students with problems and use
them to solve them with CT” in the classroom. Participants envisioned problem-­
solving activities in different ways. One preservice teacher said: “I can implement
computational thinking by giving students problems to solve that can be solved in
multiple ways, and asking that they solve the problem is the least complicated man-
ner.” Another explained that he would “show students why working through a prob-
lem a certain way is logical, or try to explain what needs to happen in order to solve
problems.” Other ideas included “doing real world problems,” “giving students
problems to solve that can be solved in multiple ways,” “assign things that can be
solved by thinking in a systematic way,” or “work problems that can be difficult
overall but can be broken down into easier steps.” Furthermore, the idea of problem-­
solving was also discussed alongside the use of algorithms, or step-by-step instruc-
tions. For example, one of the participants stated that she would implement
computational thinking by having students “solving problems step by step, solving
a problem and asking questions in sequential parts.” Other participants reflected
similar thoughts, describing that CT involved helping students “figure out the steps
of getting the answer,” teach them “what steps to go through to solve a problem,”
Computational Thinking in Teacher Education 215

or have them “show their work and steps of how they got to the answer.” Although
problem-solving was perceived by preservice teachers as a general concept through
which to infuse CT, they also reflected on how CT implementation would look like
in their core content area.

Computational Thinking Can Be Applied in Core Content Areas

Another theme that emerged when preservice teachers were asked about computa-
tional thinking was its implementation through core content areas, such as mathe-
matics, language arts, social studies, and science. Embedding CT through
mathematics was one of the main themes that emerged in this category (N = 24).
Specifically, preservice teachers explained that computational thinking fits with
mathematics because of its problem-solving aspect. Along these lines, one partici-
pant stated, “I think CT fits well into math as they are heavily related. I would try
to show students why working through a problem a certain way is logical, or try to
explain what needs to happen in order to solve problems (that way they can use
their own logic to solve it orderly).” Another participant expressed the same senti-
ment stating, “computational thinking can be implemented by having the students
work together on a math problem. This will allow the students to solve the problem
in a systematic and logical way.” Beyond mathematics, preservice teachers also
discussed ways to embed computational thinking in science as well as non-STEM
disciplines, such as language arts, social studies, or arts. In these subjects, preservice
teachers’ conceptions of computational thinking centered around using problem
decomposition, algorithms, or patterns. This view is reflected by one preservice
teacher who suggested that in an English language arts classroom, students could
break down stories (i.e., problem decomposition) to identify patterns (i.e., pattern
recognition), in order to help them “solve crime mysteries.” Similarly, another
­preservice teacher suggested that identifying patterns and logical thinking were
very useful “especially in Spanish grammar” to understand the structure of the
language. Overall, preservice teachers varied in their views of CT implementation
in their future classrooms. While some saw technology as central to CT implemen-
tation, others believed that problem-solving was a key concept, or that CT was
subject dependent.

Discussion

The results from the study suggest that preservice teachers’ views about computa-
tional thinking encompass a broad spectrum of concepts, from simply using
computers to using computational tools to solve problems. Their views also
reflected the idea of computational thinking being connected to other types of
thinking, such as mathematical or logical thinking. Furthermore, preservice teach-
ers also discussed a number of ways they would implement computational
216 A. Yadav et al.

thinking in their future classrooms, which aligned closely with their views of what
computational thinking was. Preservice teachers commented that computational
thinking could be embedded in a K-12 classroom through technology integration as
well as through exercises to solve problems. When mentioned in the core content
areas, mathematics was the most mentioned subject where preservice teachers saw
computational thinking more easily apply.
In order to integrate computational thinking at the K-12 level, we need a multi-
dimensional approach for a systematic change to prepare teachers to embed compu-
tational thinking. This includes preparing teachers for computational thinking
competencies. Starting with preservice teachers during their teacher education
program years provides the right time frame to develop their understanding of com-
putational thinking in the context of the subject matter they will teach (Yadav et al.,
2014). The results from this study suggest that preservice teachers’ views about
computational thinking cover a wide range of ideas and often do not align with cur-
rent thinking and CT standards being proposed by national organizations such as the
CSTA and ISTE. Even when preservice teachers might have an understanding about
what computational thinking involves, it is important that they are provided with
sufficient opportunities and time to engage in CT constructs within the context of
their grade level and subject area. As the results from this study suggest, it seems
that preservice teachers have grasped computational thinking ideas as being related
to problem-solving and logical thinking. Participants in our study expanded on the
idea of problem-solving by including sequential, step-by-step, or computer-like
ways to solve problems (i.e., algorithms). While some of these ideas were consistent
with computational thinking concepts, they were limited to simplified conceptions
of the idea and did not showcase an in-depth understanding of what computational
thinking involves.
Preservice teachers’ views on approaches to embedding computational thinking
in K-12 further reflected a shallow comprehension of computational thinking. The
majority of participants mentioned that mathematics was a natural fit to expose
students to computational thinking. Their oversimplified views of computational
thinking as a problem-solving approach might have inclined them to see mathemat-
ics as a natural fit to incorporate CT in the classroom.
Preservice teachers also talked about using computers or technology to introduce
computational thinking to their students. These results are consistent with the litera-
ture on this subject, which suggests that teachers’ conceptions about computational
thinking are not always accurate and they typically value one CT concept more than
others (Good, Yadav, & Lishinski, 2016; Yadav et al., 2014). These initial concep-
tions about computational thinking could serve as a starting point upon which we
could build and connect CT concepts to what teachers do in the classroom. For
example, Mannila et al. (2014) examined how teachers perceived their own class-
room activities in relation to computational thinking. The results from the survey
found that teachers reported concepts related to data collection, data analysis, and
data representation as the most common computational thinking idea. The teachers
also reported that the use of web resources, social media, and office productivity
suites as technology tools could be used to promote computational thinking in their
classrooms. Similarly, preservice teachers in our study focused on problem-solving
Computational Thinking in Teacher Education 217

aspects of computational thinking and reported that they would use computers to
embed CT in their classrooms. Given the recent conversations around computing, in
general, and computational thinking as a twenty-first-century problem-solving
approach (Wing, 2006; Yadav et al., 2014), it is possible that preservice teachers
have encountered the idea that CT is related to computing; however, they have not
formed a comprehensive understanding of computational thinking.

Implications for Educators and Researchers

Our findings that preservice teachers possess oversimplified views of computational

thinking have important implications for teacher educators and provide directions for
future research. With the increased focus on computer science education and efforts
to introduce elementary and secondary students to computing ideas (ISTE, 2011),
preparing teachers in this area has become vital. The current efforts to train teachers
in computing education have mainly focused on in-service teacher professional
development at the national level, such as Exploring Computer Science (ECS),
Project Lead the Way (PLTW), and Code.org. However, training in-service teachers
is only a temporary solution to the long-term problem of developing a pipeline of
future teachers who are prepared to embed computational thinking in their class-
rooms. The teacher training needs to begin early on in the teacher preparation pro-
grams to allow preservice teachers to understand how computational thinking ideas
are related to their content areas. Preservice teacher education can play a critical role
in addressing this issue and continuously train new teachers who are ready to teach
computational thinking to their students. One of the first steps in promoting compu-
tational thinking is to address the underlying misconceptions that teachers have
about it (Qualls & Sherrell, 2010). Teacher educators and computer science educa-
tors need to collaborate to develop means to introduce computational thinking ideas
both by establishing new pathways in computer science education and by expanding
CT within current teacher preparation coursework. Introducing computational think-
ing through existing coursework is a promising approach, as many of the computa-
tional thinking ideas may be naturally fit into what is already covered in the courses.
For example, many introductory educational psychology courses cover heuristic rea-
soning and algorithms as problem-solving approaches, which might be ideally suited
as CT topics. Yadav et al. (2011, 2014) did exactly that as they implemented a
one-week module in their required introductory educational psychology course for
all preservice teachers. Another opportunity to introduce computational thinking to
preservice teachers is through educational technology courses, which are offered in
majority of teacher education programs (Polly, Mims, Shepherd, & Inan, 2010). In
the early 2000s the US Department of Education funded teacher education programs
to prepare tomorrow’s teachers to use technology through its PT3 grants program.
The program funded 441 projects for over 300 million dollars and resulted in many
teacher education programs restructuring or developing new educational technology
courses for preservice teachers, along with faculty professional development for
teaching these courses (http://www2.ed.gov/programs/teachtech/). The focus of
218 A. Yadav et al.

educational technology coursework has evolved from using office suites to Web 2.0
technologies over the last decade (Polly et al., 2010).
It is time for teacher educators to transform educational technology toward com-
puting education and to structure courses to engage preservice teachers in computa-
tional thinking tools and ideas. Beyond these opportunities, teacher education
faculty involved in teaching content-specific methods courses could also tie compu-
tational thinking constructs and vocabulary to teachers’ day-to-day classroom activ-
ities. For example, preservice teachers could help their students acquire the skills to
think about abstraction within language arts classes by using similes (i.e., showing
similarities between two related things) and metaphors (i.e., implicit comparisons
between unrelated things) (Barr & Stephenson, 2011). Similarly, preservice teach-
ers in science could learn to use pattern recognition and idea formation from com-
putational thinking when discussing data collection, analysis, and representation
aspects of scientific experiments. Modeling and simulation in science classrooms
provide other ways to discuss abstraction where students can choose “a way to rep-
resent an artifact, to allow it to be manipulated in useful ways” (Csizmadia et al.,
2015, p. 15). In summary, it is important that teacher educators work to introduce
preservice teachers to computational thinking skills where appropriate and add its
vocabulary where they can (ISTE, 2011). Computational thinking concepts and
capabilities developed by the Computer Science Teachers Association (CSTA) and
the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) in their documenta-
tion provide a starting point for introducing these terms, as their documents include
definitions, shared vocabulary, and examples of CT applications for each grade level
(Barr, Conery, & Harrison, 2011).
Our findings have important implications for researchers and for future research.
The current study used open-ended questions to examine preservice teachers’ con-
ceptions of computational thinking, and the results suggested that their understand-
ing of CT is limited in scope. Future research should conduct an in-depth examination
of how preservice teachers think of computational thinking through interviews. This
would allow researchers to further probe what preservice teachers view as CT, or
explore how problem-solving relates to computational thinking, for instance.
Research could also examine preservice teachers’ understanding of CT through
vignettes that provide preservice teachers with hypothetical teaching scenarios of
computational thinking in a classroom context. Vignettes provide a good context
validity to measure preservice teachers’ competencies in a given domain (Brovelli,
Bölsterli, Rehm, & Wilhelm, 2014). In summary, in order for computational think-
ing ideas to be successfully implemented in classrooms across the globe, preser-
vice teacher education has to be the focus of researchers, teacher educators, and
policy makers.

Acknowledgment We would like to thank all the teachers who participated in this study. This
work is supported by the National Science Foundation under grant numbers CNS-0938999 and
1502462. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material
are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science
Foundation.
Computational Thinking in Teacher Education 219

References

Akcaoglu, M., & Koehler, M. J. (2014). Cognitive outcomes from the Game-Design and Learning
(GDL) after-school program. Computers & Education, 75, 72–81.
Astrachan, O., Hambrusch, S., Peckham, J., & Settle, A. (2009). The present and future of compu-
tational thinking. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 41(1), 549–550.
Atmatzidou, S., & Demetriadis, S. (2014). How to support students’ computational thinking skills
in educational robotics activities. In Proceedings of 4th International Workshop Teaching
Robotics, Teaching with Robotics & 5th International Conference Robotics in Education
(pp. 43–50).
Barr, D., Conery, L., & Harrison, J. (2011). Computational thinking: A digital age skill for every-
one. Learning & Leading with Technology, 38(6), 20–23.
Barr, V., & Stephenson, C. (2011). Bringing computational thinking to K-12: What is involved and
what is the role of the computer science education community? ACM Inroads, 2(1), 48–54.
Blum, L., & Cortina, T. J. (2007). CS4HS: An outreach program for high school CS teachers. ACM
SIGCSE Bulletin, 39(1), 19–23.
Brennan, K., & Resnick, M. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development
of computational thinking. In Proceedings of the 2012 annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Vancouver, Canada.
Brovelli, D., Bölsterli, K., Rehm, M., & Wilhelm, M. (2014). Using vignette testing to measure
student science teachers’ professional competencies. American Journal of Educational
Research, 2(7), 555–558.
Bundy, A. (2007). Computational thinking is pervasive. Journal of Scientific and Practical
Computing, 1(2), 67–69.
Calao, L. A., Moreno-León, J., Correa, H. E., & Robles, G. (2015). Developing mathematical
thinking with scratch. In Design for Teaching and Learning in a Networked World (pp. 17–27).
Cham: Springer.
College Board. (2014). AP Computer Science Principles Draft Curriculum Framework. Retrieved
26 June 2015 https://advancesinap.collegeboard.org/stem/computer-science-principles
Computer Science Teachers Association, & International Society for Technology in Education.
(2011). Computational Thinking: Leadership Toolkit (1st ed..) Retrieved from http://www.csta.
acm.org/Curriculum/sub/CurrFiles/471.11CTLeadershiptToolkit-SP-vF.pdf.
Creswell, J. W. (2002). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative.
New Jersey, Upper Saddle River: Pearson.
Csizmadia, A., Curzon, P., Dorling, M., Humphreys, S., Ng, T., Selby, C., & Woollard, J. (2015).
Computational Thinking A Guide for Teachers.
Cuny, J. (2012). Transforming high school computing: A call to action. ACM Inroads, 3(2), 32–36.
Denning, P. (2009). The profession of IT Beyond computational thinking. Communications of the
ACM, 52, 28–30.
Dwyer, H., Boe, B., Hill, C., Franklin, D., & Harlow, D. (2013). Computational Thinking for
Physics: Programming Models of Physics Phenomenon in Elementary School.
Fletcher, G. H., & Lu, J. J. (2009). Education human computing skills: rethinking the K-12 experi-
ence. Communications of the ACM, 52(2), 23–25.
Good, J., Yadav, A., & Lishinski, A. (2016). Measuring computational thinking preconceptions:
analysis of a survey for pre-service teacher’s’ conceptions of computational thinking. In Paper
presented at Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education, Savannah, GA.
Gretter, S., & Yadav, A. (2016). Computational thinking and media & information literacy: An
integrated approach to teaching twenty-first century skills. TechTrends, 60, 510–516.
doi:10.1007/s11528-016-0098-4.
Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12: A review of the state of the field.
Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43. doi: 10.3102/0013189X12463051.
Guzdial, M. (2008). Education paving the way for computational thinking. Communications of the
ACM, 51(8), 25–27.
 220 A. Yadav et al.

Howland, K., & Good, J. (2015). Learning to communicate computationally with Flip: A bi-modal
programming language for game creation. Computers & Education, 80, 224–240.
Ingersoll, R., Merrill, L., & Stuckey, D. (2014). Seven Trends: The Transformation of the Teaching
Force. Retrieved from: http://cpre.org/sites/default/files/workingpapers/1506_7trendsap
ril2014.pdf
ISTE. (2011). Teacher Resources. Retrieved from https://www.iste.org/explore/articledetail?articl
eid=152
Lee, I., Martin, F., & Apone, K. (2014). Integrating computational thinking across the K-8 curricu-
lum. ACM Inroads, 5(4), 64–71.
Lishinski, A., Yadav, A., Enbody, R., & Good, J. (2016). The influence of problem solving abilities
on students’ Performance on Different Assessment Tasks in CS1. In Proceedings of the 47th
ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education (pp. 329–334). New York: ACM.
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.
Mannila, L., Dagiene, V., Demo, B., Grgurina, N., Mirolo, C., Rolandsson, L., & Settle, A. (2014).
Computational thinking in k-9 education. In Proceedings of the Working Group Reports of the
2014 on Innovation & Technology in Computer Science Education Conference (pp. 1–29).
New York: ACM.
Nickerson, H., Brand, C., & Repenning, A. (2015). Grounding computational thinking skill acqui-
sition through contextualized instruction. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual International
Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 207–216). New York.
Polly, D., Mims, C., Shepherd, C. E., & Inan, F. (2010). Evidence of impact: transforming teacher
education with preparing tomorrow’s teachers to teach with technology (PT3) grants. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 26(4), 863–870.
Prieto-rodriguez, E., & Berretta, R. (2014). Digital technology teachers’ perceptions of computer
science: It is not all about programming. In IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference.
doi:10.1109/FIE.2014.7044134.
Qualls, J. A., & Sherrell, L. B. (2010). Why computational thinking should be integrated into the
curriculum. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 25(5), 66–71.
Rode, J. A., Weibert, A., Marshall, A., Aal, K., von Rekowski, T., el Mimoni, H., & Booker,
J. (2015). From computational thinking to computational making. In Proceedings of the 2015
ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (pp. 239–250).
New York: ACM.
Selby, C. C. (2015). Relationships: computational thinking, pedagogy of programming, and
bloom’s taxonomy. In Proceedings of the Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing
Education on ZZZ (pp. 80–87). New York: ACM.
Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35.
Wing, J. M. (2008). Computational thinking and thinking about computing. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering
Sciences, 366(1881), 3717–3725.
Yadav, A., Hong, H., & Stephenson, C. (2016). Computational thinking for all: Pedagogical approaches
to embedding a 21st century problem solving in K-12 classrooms. TechTrends, 60, 565–568.
doi:10.1007/s11528-016-0087-7.
Yadav, A., Mayfield, C., Zhou, N., Hambrusch, S., & Korb, J. T. (2014). Computational thinking
in elementary and secondary teacher education. ACM Transactions on Computing Education,
14(1), 1–16.
Yadav, A., Zhou, N., Mayfield, C., Hambrusch, S., & Korb, J. T. (2011). Introducing Computational
Thinking in Education Courses, Proceedings of ACM Special Interest Group on Computer
Science Education (pp. 465–470). Dallas, TX. doi:10.1145/1953163.1953297.

View publication stats