i
Examensarbete
15 högskolepoängWhat possibilities and hindrances do mathematics and technology
teachers express regarding teaching programming in compulsory
school?
Vilka möjligheter och hinder uttrycker matematik- och tekniklärare
angående undervisning i programmering i grundskolan?
Somporn Teppattra
Ämneslärarexamen, 225 hp
Kompletterande pedagogisk utbildning Ange datum för slutseminarium 2017-03-20
Examinator: Leif Karlsson Handledare: Clas Olander Lärande och samhälle
iii
Preface
Through writing this examination paper, I have learnt a lot about the process of writing research paper. I would like to thank all the teachers who participated in this study. Moreover, I would like to thank my supervisor, University Lecturer Clas Olander for professional guidance.
I hope that this study can benefit the development of the new subject “programming”.
iv
Abstract
Computer skills are becoming increasingly important in modern society and therefore teaching programming in school has been discussed intensively in Sweden as well as international. According to the European Schoolnet’s report published in 2015 on the current status of computing at schools in 21 European countries, there are 16 countries integrate coding in the curriculum at national, regional or local level. In Sweden, the National Agency of Education (Skolverket) recently published the first draft of how digital skills and programming will be strengthened in education. However, programming will not be a new subject in compulsory school, it will be a part of mathematics and technology.
The aim of my study is to investigate how the teachers perceive programming, how teachers prepare themselves for teaching programming, how teachers teach programming, what difficulties the teachers are facing when teaching programming, and what the teachers’ opinions are regarding the NAE’s suggestion to include programming in the upcoming curriculum. The main research question of this study is: What possibilities and hindrances do mathematics and technology teachers express regarding teaching programming in upper level of compulsory school?
This study has been carried out as a qualitative research. Teachers’ opinions and viewpoints are investigated by using semi-structured interviews and a questionnaire as a data collection method. The participants are selected from mathematics and/or technology teachers, teaching in grades 7-9 at Swedish compulsory schools and categorized into two groups: inexperience of teaching programming in one group and experience of teaching programming in the other.
The study unravels five viewpoints of teachers regarding programming education; how teachers perceive programming, how teachers prepare themselves for teaching programming, how teachers teach programming, hindrances of teaching programming and teachers’ suggestions about including programming in the compulsory school curriculum. The terms “programming” and “computational thinking” should be introduced and defined clearly (see Definition p. 3). Five hindrances are lifted up in this study. They are inadequate knowledge, time constraint, financial support for teaching materials, technical equipment from municipalities and schools, lack of prerequisite knowledge in preschool-year 6 and lack of collegial cooperation. There are also some suggestions and requirements from teachers regarding teaching programming in school.
Keywords
teaching programming, programming education, learning programming, compulsory school, lower secondary school, computational thinking, upper level of compulsory school
v
Sammandrag
Datorkunskaper blir allt viktigare i det moderna samhället och därför har programmering i skolan diskuterats intensivt i Sverige såväl som internationellt. Enligt European Schoolnets (2015) rapport om aktuell status för datorkunskap i skolor i 21 europeiska länder, finns det 16 länder som integrerar kodning i läroplanen på nationell, regional eller lokal nivå. I Sverige har Skolverket nyligen kommit ut med det första utkastet till hur digital kompetens och programmering kommer att förstärkas och tydliggöras i utbildningen. Dock kommer programmering inte som ett nytt ämne i grundskolan, däremot kommer det att vara en del av matematik och teknik.
Syftet med min studie är att undersöka hur lärarna uppfattar programmering, hur lärare förbereder sig för att lära programmering, hur lärare undervisar programmering, vilka svårigheter lärarna står inför när de undervisar i programmering, och vad lärarnas åsikter om Skolverkets förslag att inkludera programmering i den kommande läroplanen. Huvudfrågeställningen med denna studie är: Vilka möjligheter och hinder uttrycker matematik- och tekniklärare angående undervisning och lärande i programmering i grundskolan?
Studien har genomförts som en kvalitativ undersökning. Lärarnas åsikter och synpunkter utreds med hjälp av semistrukturerade intervjuer och en enkät som datainsamlingsmetod. Deltagarna valdes från matematik och/eller teknik lärare, undervisning i årskurserna 7-9 vid svenska grundskolor och kategoriseras i två grupper: erfarenhet av undervisning om programmeringen i en grupp respektive inte erfarenhet av undervisning om programmering i den andra gruppen.
Studien visar fem huvudsakliga områden som gäller programmering; hur lärare uppfattar programmering, hur lärare förbereder sig för att lära programmering, hur lärare undervisar programmering, hinder för undervisning i programmering och lärares förslag om bland annat programmering i grundskolans läroplan. Begrepp såsom "programmering" och "datalogiskt tänkande" bör införas och definieras tydligt (se även Definition s.3). Fem hinder lyfts fram i denna studie. De är brist på kunskap, tidspress, ekonomiskt stöd till läromedel, teknisk utrustning från kommuner och skolor, brist på förkunskaper i förskolan - årskurs 6 och brist på kollegialt samarbete. Studien pekar också på några förslag och önskemål från lärare vad gäller undervisning i programmering i skolan.
Nyckelord
programmering undervisning, programmering utbildning, programmering lärande, grundskola, högstadiet , datalogiskt tänkande
vii
Table of contents
1. Introduction ... 1
2. Definitions of terms ... 3
3. Literature review ... 4
3.1 Status of programming in school ... 4
3.2 Importance of learning Programming ... 7
3.3 Strategies to teach programming ... 7
3.4 Hindrances of teaching programming ... 8
4. Method ... 10
4.1 Informants ... 10
4.2 Reliability and validity ... 11
4.3 Ethical Considerations ... 12
5. Results ... 13
5.1 How teachers perceive programming ... 16
5.2 how teachers prepare themselves for teaching programming ... 17
5.3 How do you teach programming? ... 18
5.4 Hindrances of Teaching Programming ... 19
5.5 Opinions regarding having programming in compulsory school curriculum ... 20
6. Discussion ... 21
6.1 How teachers perceive programming ... 21
6.2 how teachers prepare themselves for teaching programming ... 22
6.3 How teachers teach programming ... 23
6.4 Hindrances of Teaching Programming ... 23
6.5 Suggestions to NAE regarding having programming in compulsory school ... 25
7. Conclusion ... 27
References ... 30 Appendix ... I
1
1. Introduction
Today we are living in a world where many people are dependent on information technology and computational equipment. Computers are used for many purposes and in a variety of sectors: banking, transport, health care, research, manufacturing, entertainment and more. In addition, the rapid advancement of technology makes computers more useable and more portable for example in the form of a smart phone which can be carried around in our hands to access information or to get in touch with others. As a result, we have simply become very dependent on computers in our daily lives.
Computer skills are becoming increasingly important in modern society and therefore teaching programming in school has been discussed intensively in Sweden as well as international. In October 2015, the European Schoolnet (2015) published a report on the current status of computing at schools in 21 countries (20 European countries and Israel). The findings show that 16 countries integrate coding in the curriculum at national, regional or local level (Austria, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Lithuania, Malta, Spain, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia and England).
In Finland, teaching and learning programming skills become an obligatory part of Finnish primary school curriculum in the fall of 2016 (Hiltunen, 2016). In Denmark, one of compulsory parts of the Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics curriculum is to know about simple programming (European Schoolnet, 2015). In Sweden, the National Agency of Education (NAE: Skolverket) recently published the first draft of how digital skills and programming will be strengthened in education (Skolverket, 2016a). The NAE’s assessment is that programming will not be a new subject in compulsory school, it will be a part of mathematics and technology.
Purpose and research question
The motivation for this study conceives from my internship where I was assigned to teach programming to year 7 and year 9 pupils. This was a challenge because these two classes have never had programming education before and their teachers who taught mathematics and technology had no experience in teaching programming. The other challenge was the limitation of material and equipment. There was no syllabus to follow and the school provided only tablet to the pupils. This means no personal computer or laptop to program
2
with. Therefore, I started with making my teaching plan by asking myself the basic didactic questions: who, what, why, and how. I planned to teach the pupils methods to understand how computers work, what programming is and how to think logically. I used some unplugged activities (activities without computer or electronic equipment) and I found many interesting applications (visual programming language), supported on tablets such as "Scratch Jr."1 and "Tynker"2.
With my education background in computer science and long experience as a programmer, I was quite confident of my capability to convey programming education to the pupils. It draws my attention to teachers’ thoughts, especially mathematics and technology teachers. How do teachers perceive programming? Are teachers ready for teaching programming? Why do or why do not teachers teach programming? What do teachers think about including programming in the curriculum?
The other motivation for this study is the NAE’s suggestion for the new curriculum for compulsory school that programming will be a part of mathematics and technology, in addition, I will become a mathematics and technology teacher for upper level of compulsory school pupils and thence the main research question is addressed:
What possibilities and hindrances do mathematics and technology teachers express regarding teaching programming in upper level of compulsory school?
The aim of my study is to investigate: - how teachers perceive programming,
- how teachers prepare themselves for teaching programming, - how teachers teach programming,
- what the hindrances the teachers are facing in teaching programming, and - what the teachers’ opinions regarding the NAE’s suggestion to include
programming in the upcoming curriculum.
1 ScratchJr is an introductory programming language that enables young children (ages 5 and up) to create
their own interactive stories and games. Children snap together graphical programming blocks to make characters move, jump, dance, and sing. (scratchjr.org)
2 Tynker is a complete learning system that teaches kids to code. Kids begin experimenting with visual
blocks, then progress to text-based coding as they design games, build apps, and make incredible projects. (tynker.com)
3
2. Definitions of terms
Before discussing programming education, some terms should be clarified for more understanding.
The term “Programming” has different meaning in the literature of education. In some contexts, programming can mean only coding or writing code, while in the other contexts, programming can be a broader approach as “computational thinking”. This can cause confusion to the apprehension that computational thinking equates with programming or computational thinking requires the use of programming, even though it does not necessarily (Voogt et al. 2015).
The definition of the term “computer programming” or “programming”, defined by the European Schoolnet (2015) is “the process of developing and implementing various sets of instructions to enable a computer to perform a certain task, solve problems, and provide human interactivity.”
The Royal Society (2012) describes “Computational thinking” as “the process of recognizing aspects of computation in the world that surrounds us, and applying tools and techniques from Computer Science to understand and reason about both natural and artificial systems and processes.”. “Computational thinking involves solving problems, designing systems, and understanding human behavior, by drawing on the concepts fundamental to computer science” (Wing, 2006).
According to The Royal Society (2012), Computer Science is the rigorous academic branch of knowledge and underpins a huge range of subjects, including programming languages, data structures, algorithms, etc. Information Technology (IT) refers to “the use of computers in industry, commerce, the arts and elsewhere, including aspects of IT systems architecture, human factors, project management, etc.” (ibid.)
The term “Information and communications technologies” (ICT) is defined as “a diverse set of technological tools and resources used to communicate, and to create, disseminate, store, and manage information.” (Blurton, 1999). In Swedish education, ICT training focuses on orienting the pupils how to use digital technology and tools for helping with information searching, writing, reading, presentation and communications (Skolverket, 2011).
4
3. Literature review
Research in programming concerning teaching programming in compulsory schools is limited both in Swedish and internationally mainly because the topic is relatively new (Kjällander, Åkerfeldt & Petersen, 2016). My search criteria for articles are research focusing on programming in upper level of compulsory school and research concerning teachers’ perspective. Swedish research, which meet the criteria I want, was hard to find. For that reason, the articles, I choose, are not only Swedish but also international articles that were relevant to the following topics:
- Status of programming in school - Importance of learning programming - Strategies to teach programming - Hindrances of teaching programming
3.1 Status of programming in school
In this part, I present a brief overview of Swedish school system and the current status of education in programming in Sweden, Finland and United Kingdom (UK).
Sweden
In Sweden, every child has equal right of entry to free education from the age of six. The Swedish compulsory school (grundskola) consists of three stages: junior level (lågstadiet, years 1–3), intermediate level (mellanstadiet, years 4–6) and senior or upper level of compulsory school or lower secondary school (högstadiet, years 7–9). (see more detail in Appendix V)
Programming is actually not a new subject in Swedish school system. In Sweden, computing programming has been offered in school since the 1960s and the 1970s (Rolandsson & Skogh, 2014). When compulsory education was introduced in the mid-1900s, some said that learning to code was as important as reading, writing, and counting (Rolandsson, 2015).
In Lgr80 (Curriculum for compulsory education in 1980), programming was included as a content to upper secondary school, but not to the compulsory school (Kjällander,
5
Åkerfeldt & Petersen, 2016). However, some teachers worked using BASIC3 programming language at lower secondary school in the '70s and' 80s. The initiative to introduce and work with programming in the school were primarily teacher-directed (Björk, 1983). The result of such an initiative exposed a non-sufficient solution. As a result, the subject was not suitable for most students and the drop-off rate was high, even at university level (Rolandsson & Skogh, 2014).
Today curriculum for the compulsory school (lgr11), programming is still not included as a content in any subject, alternatively, computing teaching focus is mainly on ICT training and basic digital literacy skills. However, the findings from the NAE’s report “IT monitoring in 2015” (Skolverket, 2016c) show that knowledge of programming or coding is heading into the Swedish school. Almost three out of ten students in both grades 7-9 as well as secondary school says that they have learned to understand how programming or coding works at school and about two out of ten pupils in primary as well as secondary school say they have learned to program at school.
Programming in mathematics and technology
The syllabuses specify what teaching in different subjects should raise. In the NAE’s (Skolverkets, 2016a) draft, they suggest that programming is primarily introduced in compulsory school in the curricula in mathematics and technology.
In the syllabus in mathematics: programming is proposed to deal with, for example, training the pupils to create, describe and comply with clear and step by step instructions and to use programming to solve problems.
In the syllabus in technology: programming is proposed to deal with, for example, using programming to control objects or their own constructions, moreover, understanding that computers are controlled by software and connected together in a network.
Finland
In Finland, programming skills has been taken into account in the official curriculum of Finnish basic education for primary schools in 2014. In the curriculum for grades 1-3, teaching ICT skills such as information retrieval and learned to use ICT as learning tools
3 BASIC - an early programming language that is still among the simplest and most popular of
6
is focused, programming learning is not yet described precisely. The programming skills are mentioned in the goals of teaching mathematics for grades 3-6. “A student is able to code a functional computer program by using a graphical interface.” is said in the 6th grade mathematics criteria of evaluation. Algorithms are discussed in the evaluation criteria for mathematics for grades 7-9. In addition, the programming is also tied to a children’s general skills of thinking with attributes like learning systematic and causal connections as written in this curriculum that “Programming skills are practiced as a part of different school subjects.”. (Hiltunen, 2016)
The Board of Education in Finland have decided that teaching of computer programming will be in upcoming curriculum for primary schools in the fall of 2016 and the teaching of programming skills will be obligatory part of Finnish basic education which will start from the grade one. Apparently, the programming does not become its own subject but the time for teaching will be taken from hour division of mathematics. Ordinary teachers will begin to teach programming skills in all Finnish classes from the first grade to the ninth grade. (Hiltunen, 2016)
United Kingdom (UK)
The report “Shut down or restart” (The Royal Society, 2012) showed reasons why the subject called “ICT” should be replaced with a new subject called “Computing” in England's curriculum. One of the main reason is the previous UK curriculum in ICT, many pupils are not inspired by what they are taught and gain nothing beyond basic digital literacy skills such as how to use a word-processor and there is an inadequacy of teachers who can teach beyond basic digital literacy. (ibid.)
In September 2014, the Computing Programmes of Study was started officially to replace the disapplication of the existing curriculum subject, Information and Communication Technology (ICT), in January 2012 (Sentence & Csizmadia, 2017). The Department for Education (2013) states in National curriculum in England: computing programmes of study that “A high-quality computing education equips pupils to use computational thinking and creativity to understand and change the world. Computing has deep links with mathematics, science and design and technology, and provides insights into both natural and artificial systems.”
7
3.2 Importance of learning Programming
Tuomas Hiltunen (2016) discusses several reasons why programming should be taught for children in his master’s thesis, “Learning and Teaching Programming Skills in Finnish Primary Schools – The Potential of Games.”. Teaching programming can develop children’s cognitive skills and logical thinking. Moreover, teaching programming motivates, challenges and socializes children. Also, knowing how to program benefits children to use digital devices such as smartphones and software effectively and the use of devices for only entertainment purposes is also prevented.
The Royal Society (2012) presents four main educational reasons why computer science is included in the curriculum: computation is a fundamental part of our world, computer science develops key thinking skills, creation and creativity, and computational thinking is invading every other discipline.
The report “Computing our future” (European Schoolnet, 2015) states that by 2020, Europe may experience a shortage of more than 800,000 professionals skilled in computing/informatics, therefore, the shortage of IT employees is a reason that school should teach pupils computing and coding skills. Another important motivation is that coding skills help pupils to understand today’s digitalized society and foster 21st century skills such as problem solving, creativity and logical thinking.
3.3 Strategies to teach programming
Sue Sentence and Andrew Csizmadia (2017) wrote “Computing in the curriculum: Challenges and strategies from a teacher’s perspective”. This study was carried out in UK in 2014 by conducting a survey for over 300 active Computing teachers to discover what challenges teachers face and strategies teachers use successfully in teaching Computing. The study reveals a series of five themes grouped from most of the individual strategies suggested by teachers, which are
Learning away from the computer (unplugged-style or kinaesthetic activities)
Many of these activities are designed to promote both collaboration and computational thinking skills. Teachers try to support students’ understanding by using physical, or unplugged-style activities in the classroom. (p.485)
8
Collaborative working
A variety of collaborative working strategies including: team work, peer mentor, paired programming and collaboration, that they use within the classroom and would promote to other computer science teachers. (p.485)
Computational thinking
A variety of teaching and learning activities, teachers use to promote and develop their students’ competence in a number of computational thinking concepts and processes including: logic (algorithmic) thinking, decomposition, problem solving and abstraction. An example: “Breaking down the problem then breaking it down again then breaking it down again... ...” (p.486)
Contextualization of learning
Teachers talked about relating Computing content to other aspects of the other subjects taught at school and also to concepts from home (so relating to real-life). An example: “Scale it back to basics and use real-life examples for the activities e.g. making tea. Use lots of visual aids to help pupils and online resources to help scaffold activities.” (p.487).
Scaffolding programming tasks
The strategies that teachers use to help their students understand program code. An example: “... giving code on paper not electronically, so they have to type it in, think about what they are typing and fix the errors that occur when trying to compile the program ...” (p.487).
3.4 Hindrances of teaching programming
There are several hindrances of teaching programming revealed in literature. In this part, challenges of teaching programming in Finnish schools and UK schools will be discussed. Challenges of teaching programming in Finish primary school
Hiltunen (2016) shows in his study what kind of challenges teachers in Finnish primary school cause from the didactic point of view, and from learner’s aspect. There are:
- The definition of programming among teachers appears to be unclear.
- How to provide teachers with adequate training and clear methods for teaching. - How to get teachers to train in their own times.
9
- How to get enough devices for children and technological infrastructure for the teaching programming.
Challenges of teaching computing in school in UK
Sentence & Csizmadia (2017) show in their study what challenges teachers face in teaching Computing in UK. The five most commonly-mentioned challenges teachers facing are as follows:
- Teachers’ own subject knowledge
- Students lack of understanding of content - Technical problems in school
- Differentiation to meet different levels of ability - Students willingness or ability to problem solve
10
4. Method
In this section, I will discuss about the research method and data collection of my study. My study aims to capture viewpoints expressed by teachers regarding teaching programming. This explorative study has been carried out as a qualitative research which is a research strategy that usually emphasizes on points of view of expressions and language in the collection and analysis of data (Bryman, 2012). In this study, teachers’ opinions and viewpoints are investigated by using semi-structured interviews and questionnaires as my data collection methods.
Structured interview is usually used in quantitative research and the interview is supposed to generate answers that can be coded and processed quickly to reflect the researcher’s concerns to maximize the reliability and validity of measurement of key concepts. Unlike, in semi-structured interviewing, there is much greater interest in the interviewee’s point of view. Moreover, the interviewee has freedom of how to reply which may not follow exactly in the way outlined on the list. The interview process is flexible as questions that are not included in the guide may be asked as the interviewer notices things said by interviewees. (Bryman, 2012)
Questionnaires are a convenient and inexpensive way of collecting data because they can be sent to a large number of people in different geographical area. Researcher can design qualitative questionnaires by using open ended questions. Data collection in this way can reduce interviewer bias because there are “no verbal or visual clues” that could influence an interviewee to answer in a particular way. (Dube, 2010, November 11)
4.1 Informants
In this study, I use criterion sampling, which is a purposive sampling approach. Purposive sampling is a non-probability form of sampling, which means informants are not sought to sample on a random basis without to sample on a strategic way, in order that sample members differ from each other in terms of key characteristics relevant to the research question (Bryman, 2012). In my study, the participants are selected from teachers, teaching mathematics and/or technology in grades 7-9 at Swedish compulsory schools. Moreover, the participants are categorized into two groups: a) inexperience of teaching
11
programming (TI4) in one group and b) experience of teaching programming (TE5) in the other.
To collect my data, I prepared a list of questions (Appendix I) to be my interview guide. First, I decided to use semi-structured interview because the focus of my study is on participants’ viewpoint. Moreover, the semi-structured interview process is flexible as some questions in the interview guide can be skipped and new questions can be bought on during the interview depending on interviewees’ answers. However, it has been time consuming to seek for interviewees. I finally managed to interview four teachers, who have inexperience of teaching programming but I did not find any experienced teacher who could give an interview. Instead, I found an online social media group which is a forum for Swedish mathematics teachers and others who are interested in teaching mathematics. Therefore, I decided to use questionnaires method in order to reach a large population of teachers to increase possibility of getting answers from TE teachers. I designed an online questionnaire and posted it in the social media group. The questions (Appendix II) were changed to suit teachers, who have experience of teaching programming. As a result, data has been collected with a total of 17 responses from experienced teachers in programming, from this group through an online questionnaire. Moreover, I sent out the interview guide to some teachers and I got one email response from a TI teacher.
4.2 Reliability and validity
In the quantitative research, reliability and validity are important criteria in establishing and assessing the quality of the research for the researcher. Reliability refers to the consistency of a measure of a concept and validity refers to the issue of whether an indicator that is devised to gauge a concept really measures that concept. Since my study is a qualitative research and therefore measurement is not a major concentration and the issue of validity seems to have little relevance on my study. However, Lincoln and Guba (1985) and Guba and Lincoln (1994) (as cited in Bryman, 2012) suggest that “trustworthiness”, an alternative term and way of establishing and assessing the quality
4 The abbreviation “TI” stands for “inexperienced in teaching programming teacher” in this paper. 5 The abbreviation “TE” stands for “experienced in teaching programming teacher” in this paper.
12
of qualitative studies, comprises four criteria which are comparable with reliability and validity in quantitative research.
In this study, I did a pilot test with one of classmate. The pilot test provides the interviewers experience beforehand before they actually are making the field study. The interviews held in a room where we could control background noise and interruptions. The interviews were recorded, transcribed and translated from Swedish to English. The recording of the interviews, I used a portable digital recorder to record with good audio quality because the accuracy of the transcribed transcript was dependent on the quality of the recording. The transcribing of the interviews, I got help from a Swedish native speaker to ensure that the interviews data was written down correctly. Finally, all the data both from the transcribed transcript and from the questionnaires was translated from Swedish to English and validated by a person who is fluent in both English and Swedish.
4.3 Ethical Considerations
The informants were informed what the study is about and that the information offered by them has been used for research purposes. I asked for permission for recording the interview and I got approval from them. I am confident that the privacy of the people involved in my study will not be violated. The names of my research participants and the location of their schools are not identifiable.
13
5. Results
In this results section, the findings of the information which gathered from five interview, one e-mail and 17 internet questionnaires will be presented. First, I use one table and four charts to present the basic information of the participants. Later, I will present the findings of how the participants perceive programming, how teachers prepare themselves for teaching programming, what the difficulties the teachers are facing in teaching programming, and what suggestions they give to NAE regarding including programming in the upcoming curriculum.
In this study, there are five teachers (TI1-TI5) who are inexperienced in teaching programming and there are 17 teachers (TE1-TE17) who are experienced in teaching programming. Table 1 shows the basic information of the participants including gender, age, teaching subject and teaching experience.
Table 1: Basic information of the participants.
Teacher Gender Age Teaching subject Experience Teaching (year)
TI1 female 41-50 Mathematics 15
TI2 female 50 +
Mathematics, Technology, Biology,
Physics, Chemistry 24
TI3 female 41-50
Mathematics, Technology, Biology,
Physics, Chemistry 19
TI4 female 31-40 Mathematics, Biology, Physics, Chemistry 13
TI5 female 31-40 Technology, Civics 10
TE1 female 18-30 English, Mathematics 3
TE2 male 50 +
Biology, Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics,
Handicraft, Technology 3
TE3 male 41-50
Biology, Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics,
Technology 15
TE4 male 31-40
Biology, Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics,
Technology 12
TE5 male 31-40 Chemistry, Mathematics, Technology 3
TE6 male 41-50
Biology, Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics,
Technology 20
TE7 male 31-40
Biology, Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics,
Technology 14
TE8 female 41-50
Biology, Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics,
Technology 17
TE9 female 18-30
Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics,
Technology 15
TE10 female 41-50
Biology, Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics,
Technology 20
TE11 male 50 +
Biology, Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics,
14 TE12 female 41-50
Biology, Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics,
Technology 20
TE13 female 41-50
Biology, Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics,
Swedish, Technology 10
TE14 female 41-50
Biology, Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics,
Technology 14
TE15 female 50 +
Biology, Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics,
Modern languages, Technology 20
TE16 female 31-40 Art, Mathematics 7
TE17 female 31-40
Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics,
Technology 16
Chart 1: Information of the participants’ gender.
We see from chart 1, The gender distribution of the participants is seven males (32%) and 15 female teachers (68%).
Chart 2: Information of the participants’ age range.
As shown in chart 2, 41% of the participants are in age group between 41-50 years old, 32% are between 31-40 years old, 18% are over 50 and 9% are between 18-30 years old.
32%
68%
Gender
Male Female Age 18-30 9% Age 31-40 32% Age 41-50 41% Age 50 + 18%Age
18-30 31-40 41-50 50 +15
Chart 3: Information of the participants’ number of subjects teaching.
Chart 3 shows that 50% of the teachers is teaching five subjects and just 4% is teaching one subject. Majority of the participants is teaching more than one subjects.
Chart 4: Information of the participants’ teaching experience.
Chart 4 shows that overall experience level of the participants is high. Most of them have been working as a teacher for well over 10 years. Moreover, the data from Table 1 shows that the participants’ teaching experience is in the range of 3 – 30 years and the average is 14.5 years of teaching experience.
1 Subject 4% 2 Subjects14% 3 Subjects 4% 4 Subjects 14% 5 Subjects 50% 6 Subjects 9% 7 Subjects 5%
Number of subject teach
1 Subject 2 Subjects 3 Subjects 4 Subjects 5 Subjects 6 Subjects 7 Subjects 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 TE1 TE2 TE3 TE4 TE5 TE6 TE7 TE8 TE9 TE10 TE11 TE12 TE13 TE14 TE15 TE16 TE17TI1 TI2 TI3 TI4 TI5Teaching Experience
Teaching Experience (year)16
5.1 How teachers perceive programming
In this part, I will show the findings related to how the teachers perceive programming through the following questions:
• What is programming? (asked both groups)
• Why is it important for pupils to have knowledge in programming? (asked both groups)
5.1.1 What is programming?
The data of the question what programming is from five teachers of the TI group and seven teachers of the TE group, reveal that majority of the teachers give quite similar definition of programming which is to code or to write program to control machines, computers or robots what to do. There are one teacher of TI group and two teachers of TE group who answer differently. TI2 says that “Programming is something exciting, something that makes new things with. Programming will open up new paths and new thoughts to people, for adults and children, new opportunities to think.”. TE15 states that programming is command data or algorithm and TE17 states that programming is logic or a language.
When asked teachers in TI group whether everyone can learn programming, all of them answer that everyone can learn programming as well as other subjects. For example, TI4 says that “I think everyone can learn as well as you think that everyone can learn math physics French and so on. Although everyone has different circumstances of course but I do not think there are less opportunities for learning programming as you learn Spanish or learn biology.”
5.1.2 Why is it important for pupils to have knowledge in programming?
When asking the teachers in both groups whether they think that learning programming is important for pupils, almost every participant is positive with programming education. The teachers in both groups agree that programming is a part of our society or our surrounding, therefore everyone should understand how it works. For examples, TI1 says that “there is our new world, everything is digital, everything is about programming.” and TE7 writes “It gives students an opportunity to understand certain parts of their surroundings better.”
17
The teacher in TI group think that there are many subjects which could benefit from programming such as mathematics, technology, English, chemistry, physics, textile handicraft, woodwork and social studies. They think programming belong to math and technology subjects. The teacher TI5 thinks that all subjects can collaborate with programming.
Four teachers in TE group (TE1, TE10, TE16 and TE17) mention that learning programming can help pupils to practice logical thinking, to analyze and to keep up with developments. The teacher TE15 states that programming can be a tool of many careers in areas such as mathematics, physics, chemistry and technology.
However, there are two teachers in TE group who are unsure that learning programming is important. The teacher TE5 writes that he does not see any benefit of teaching programming to uninterested pupils and the teacher TE6 writes that “Important? There are many other things that are important besides programming, but it can be a way to develop their abstraction. The advantage of the programming is that pupils get a use of variables and iteration. They also get a real benefit of having order in the written.”.
5.2 how teachers prepare themselves for teaching
programming
In this part, I will show the findings related to how the teachers prepare themselves for teaching programming through the following questions:
• What kind of education or competence do you perceive as necessary for teacher to teach programming? (asked only TI group)
• Where and how have you learnt programming? (asked only TE group)
5.2.1 What kind of education or competence do you perceive as necessary for teacher to teach programming?
Regarding the question, I ask the teachers in TI group: “What kind of education or competence do you perceive as necessary for teacher to teach programming?”, the teachers do not reply directly what kind of education or competence is necessary because they do not really know the criteria of programming. Some think that teachers may just need to learn some program as tools but some think that teachers need training or taking course in university level. However, they think that to be able to teach programming,
18
teachers need to master the knowledge by actively and personally involving in training to program in order to to become trustworthy teachers and confidence.
5.2.2 Where and how have you learnt programming?
I ask question to the teachers in TE group where and how they have learnt programming. The findings are:
• only one teacher in TE group has worked as a programmer and data analyst • nine of 17 teachers answer that they have learnt programming by taking courses
in high school or university
• ten of 17 teachers answer that they have learnt by themselves. Here are some examples of the courses which the teachers took:
- web course and programming in Scratch, Makey Makey and Lego Mindstorms - Web design courses: HTML and CSS
- computer programming languages such as C64, C++, Basic I and II
5.3 How do you teach programming?
I ask the TE teachers how they teach programming to their pupils. These are the methods mentioned by the TE teachers: Hour of code (block programming), Scratch, Lego Mindstrom6, cojo, makey makey7, Koda.nu, bolka.webs.com, code.org, Arduino8, computer programming language C++, watching UR’s series “Programmera mera” (ur.se) and using spreadsheet program to teach students to solve equations. As can be seen that all of them involve the usage of computers and digital devices. They mainly teach to code visual programming languages such as Scratch or computer programming languages such as C++ or computer software to control robots. Some teach by watching visual media, video or films about programming from several websites such as UR.se and Hour of Code.
6 The Lego Mindstorms series of kits contain software and hardware to create customizable, programmable
robots. They include an intelligent brick computer that controls the system, a set of modular sensors and motors, and Lego parts from the Technic line to create the mechanical systems.
7 Makey Makey started out as a project that was initiated by two students at MIT Media Lab under the
advisorship of Mitch Resnick and is an academic and artistic project. Now it's both a business and a project with thousands of community collaborators, with more joining the ranks of inventors everyday. makeymakey.com
8 Arduino is an open-source prototyping platform based on easy-to-use hardware and software.
19
5.4 Hindrances of Teaching Programming
There are only two hindrances of teaching programming mentioned by the teachers in TI group, which are inadequacy of knowledge in programming and congestion of subject matter.
The first hindrance of teaching programming for the teachers in TI group is the inadequacy of knowledge in programming. They do not know what programming is, what they are going to teach, what the criteria and contents of programming are. Above all, they have not thought of programming because there is no requirement of teaching programming in the curriculum.
The second hindrance for the teacher in TI group is the congestion of the subject matter. They have responsibilities in more than one subject, therefore, they do not have time for it. They explain also that they have many other things to do and their knowledge in programming is so little and there are many other teachers how already know or know better than them, so they should take care of it.
The hindrances of teaching programming for the teachers in TE group are time constraints, financial support, inadequate knowledge and skill in programming, pupils’ prerequisites and responsibilities, and colleges’ collaboration. The findings are discussed in the following paragraphs.
The teacher TE5 writes: “The biggest obstacle is time. How do I get time?”. There are seven teachers (TE1, TE4, TE5, TE6, TE9, TE15 and TE16) in this group who mention that they have not enough time both to teach and to learn programming because there is so much principal content to fit in the restricted time plan. Therefore, they prioritize other. The second most mentioned hindrance in this TE group is financial support from municipalities and schools. There are five teachers in this group (TE2, TE9, TE10, TE15 and TE17) state that to teach programming needs materials, technical equipment both hardware and software, therefore, the finance can be an obstacle for teaching programming.
There are four teachers (TE8, TE9, TE12 and TE15) who write that the lack of knowledge and training is one of an obstacle, for example, TE12 writes: “Deficiencies in my knowledge. Difficult to evaluate the pupils' work.”.
20
The teacher TE6 writes that nowadays pupils lack in prerequisite knowledge in programming in preschool – year 6. However, TE6 believes that pupils will probably get the knowledge in the future. The teacher TE13 says that non-cooperative colleague is a hindrance, “Technical equipment is clearly the biggest obstacle. The second biggest obstacle are colleagues who do not dare!”
5.5 Opinions regarding having programming in compulsory
school curriculum
I ask two different questions to these two group of teachers. For the TI group I ask what they think about the NAE’s suggestion about teaching programming in compulsory school and what suggestion they want to give to the NAE regarding having programming in compulsory school. On the other hand, the teachers in TE group already teach programming to their pupils, so I ask them what they want to improve in the future. The teachers in TI group are positive about teaching programming in compulsory school and their suggestions are
- Working with teachers’ attitude and giving proper training for teachers - Writing clear goals and knowledge requirements for teachers
- Creating teaching material or educational materials to helps pupils to meet knowledge requirement and goals
- Removing some contents to make some room for programming - Including programming into subjects like technology, handcraft
- Giving responsibility of teaching programming to teachers who already have programming knowledge
The answers from the teachers in TE group regarding the question “what they want to develop or improve in the future” are:
- Skills and knowledge in teaching programming
- The principal content in curriculum to give more time to programming - Technological equipment both hardware and software
- Financial support for teaching materials and equipment, and - Collegial cooperation and cooperation with other subjects.
21
6. Discussion
The study unravels five viewpoints of teachers regarding programming education; - how teachers perceive programming,
- how teachers prepare themselves for teaching programming, - how experienced teachers teach programming,
- what the hindrances the teachers are facing in teaching programming, and - what the teachers’ suggestions to the NAE regarding having programming in
compulsory school.
In this part, I will answer the research questions by using connections between my findings and the reviewed literature.
6.1 How teachers perceive programming
Indications of how teachers perceive programming are made through the answers of two questions: what is programming? and why is it important to learn programming?
Regarding question “what is programming?”, the findings show that the majority of all participants refer programming to as coding or writing instructions using digital devices and a few TE teachers who are familiar with programming mention terms “logic” and “algorithm” in their answers. The terms “computational thinking”, “Computing” or “Computer Science” are not brought up. Terms “programming” and “computational thinking” are not equivalent (Voogt et al., 2015, Wing, 2006, The Royal Society, 2012) and they have been distinguished in the literature. “Computational thinking involves solving problems, designing systems, and understanding human behavior” (Wing, 2006) and programming is an important tool to help develop computational thinking (National Research Council, 2010). Heintz et al. (2015) suggest that teachers should not focus only on programming and code because teachers may fail to reach general and useful skills such as dividing programs in smaller parts, solving problems in creative ways, finding patterns, thinking logically, designing algorithms, working in a structured manner, making generalizations and finding models.
The findings reveal that the teachers perceive programming as an important skill for pupils to learn. The TI teachers who never teach programming state that programming is a part of the whole development today. As well as the TI teachers, the majority of the teachers who are familiar with programming agree that it is important “to understand how
22
automation in the digital society work” and “programming is future”. In the literature, Hiltunen (2016), the report of the Royal Society (2012) and the report of European Schoolnet (2015) are supporting the idea that it is important for pupils to learn programming.
However, there are some teachers believe that there are many other things that are important besides programming.
6.2 how teachers prepare themselves for teaching
programming
The findings from the question that I ask the TI teachers what kind of education or competence they perceive as necessary for teacher to teach programming and the question that I ask the TE teachers where and how they have learnt programming will show how the teachers prepare themselves for teaching programming.
According to the TI teachers’ inadequate knowledge of programming, they, therefore, cannot answer exactly what kind of knowledge is necessary. Some of them think that teachers may just need to learn some program as tools, some think that teachers need to take courses in college or university. Furthermore, they said that to be able to teach programming, teachers need to master the knowledge, irrespective of what it is, by actively and personally involving in programming in order to to become trustworthy teachers and confidence.
On the other hand, when I ask the TE teachers where and how they have learnt programming, the results are nine of 17 teachers answer that they have learnt programming by taking courses in high school or university and ten of 17 teachers answer that they have learnt by themselves. Moreover, the courses which they have taken are mostly about how to code or to write computer program.
Programming is an important tool to help develop computational thinking as Mitch Resnick (National Research Council, 2010) expresses “computational thinking is more than programming, but only in the same way that language literacy is more than writing. They are both very important. Yes, it’s more, but don’t minimize programming just because it’s more... programming, like writing, is a means of expression and an entry point for developing new ways of thinking” (p.13). However, if focus is only on
23
programming and code, teachers risk failing to include general and useful skills such as solving problems in creative ways, designing algorithms (Heintz et al., 2015). In this case, teachers seem to miss the concept of computational thinking.
To be able to deliver a new subject like computing/programming, teachers need to learn not only the knowledge in programming and computational thinking but also appropriate pedagogies for the new subject, particularly in those aspects of computer science that relate to algorithms, programming and the development of computational thinking skills (Rolandsson, 2015, Sentence & Csizmadia, 2017).
6.3 How teachers teach programming
The answers to the question how to teach programming show that almost all of the TE teachers teach their pupils to program or to code visual programming languages such as Scratch and computer program languages such as C++. None of them mentions physical activity or activity without digital devices. Moreover, there is one TE teacher perceives teaching pupils to use spreadsheet program to solve equations as teaching programming. The findings show that there appears to be some confusion over the terms “ICT”, “programming” and “computational thinking”. The different meaning in the literature of education is a cause of misunderstanding that computation thinking and programming are equivalent and to teach computational thinking requires the use of programming, although it does not necessarily (Voogt et al. 2015).
There are many activities which do not require any use of digital devices. Sentences & Csizmadia (2017) discuss a series of five themes grouped from most of the individual strategies suggested by teachers. Some strategies to teach computational thinking do not require any computer or digital device such as unplugged-style activities.
6.4 Hindrances of Teaching Programming
There are five hindrances found in this study. They are inadequate knowledge in programming, time constraint caused by the congestion of the subject matter, financial support in form of teaching materials, technical equipment both hardware and software from municipalities and schools, lack of prerequisite knowledge in programming in preschool – grade 6, and lack of cooperative colleague.
24
The first major hindrance of teaching programming in my study is an inadequate knowledge in programming. The teachers who never teach programming know very little about programming, simultaneously, many teachers in TE group feel that their competence in programming need to be developed. In addition, the report “National Agency for IT monitoring in 2015” (Skolverket, 2016c) shows that there are 57% of compulsory teachers need to develop their competence in programming/coding.
The insufficiency of teachers who are able to teach beyond basic digital literacy skills such as how to use a word-processor or a spreadsheet program is also a hindrance of computer education in many school in UK because many pupils are not inspired by learning basic digital literacy skills. Therefore, the continuing professional development for teachers of Computing is recommended. (The Royal Society, 2012)
The second hindrance is time constraint caused by the congestion of the subject matter. The teachers in TI group claim that they have no time for both learning and teaching programming because they have to prioritize other subjects which they have responsibilities and there is no requirement of teaching programming in the curriculum. “Although, programming is not part of current compulsory school curriculum, there is nothing in the Swedish curriculum that prevents schools and teacher from working with computational thinking, but also nothing that encourages them either.” (Heintz el at., 2015). According to the findings, 10 (of 17) TE teachers still can find time to learn programming by themselves, even though time constraint is also a major hindrance for the teachers in TE group.
The third hindrance is financial support in form of teaching materials, technical equipment both hardware and software from municipalities and schools. This is the second major hindrance among teachers with experience in teaching programming in this study. In the report “shut down and restart”, The Royal Society (2012) recommended that suitable technical resources which include pupil-friendly programming environments such as Scratch, educational microcontroller kits such as PICAXE and Arduino, and robot kits such as Lego Mindstorms should be available in all schools to support the teaching of Computer Science and Information technology.
Lack of prerequisite knowledge in programming in preschool – grade 6 is also mentioned by a TE teacher as a hindrance. For the reason that programming is not a part of the
25
Swedish curriculum (Heintz et al., 2015), consequently many schools specially in preschool – grade 6 have not taught programming to their pupils. However, programming will be included in the new curriculum and it will be taught from junior level as can be seen in the NAE's proposals for changes - National IT strategies: “Algebra - How clear step by step instructions can be constructed, described and followed as the basis for programming. Usage of symbols in step by step instructions.” (Skolverket, 2016a). The last hindrance mentioned by teacher TE13 is a lack of cooperative colleague. He says “Technical equipment is clearly the biggest obstacle. The second biggest obstacle are colleagues who do not dare!”
6.5 Suggestions to NAE regarding having programming in
compulsory school
From the findings in 5.5, I combine the answers from both groups and summarize to the teachers’ suggestions to the NAE.
The teachers suggest that it is possible to have programming as a part of the compulsory school curriculum if the NAE focuses on
1. Writing clear goals and knowledge requirements for teachers
2. Working with teachers’ attitude and giving proper training for teachers to improve skills and knowledge development in teaching programming
3. Financial support for creating teaching materials or educational materials to helps pupils to meet knowledge requirement and goals, and better and more technological equipment both hardware and software
4. Removing some principal contents in curriculum to make some room for programming,
5. Including programming into subjects like technology, handcraft 6. Developing collegial cooperation and cooperation with other subjects. 7. Giving responsibility of teaching programming to teachers who already have
programming knowledge
The Royal Society (2012) suggests that “Government should set a minimum level of provision for continuing professional development (CPD) for Computing teachers, should seek support from business and industry to make that provision, and should ensure
26
that the provision is well coordinated and deepens subject knowledge and subject-specific pedagogy.”
The European Schoolnet (2015) report, where more than half of the participative countries already have established coding or computing as a separate subject in the curriculum. Moreover, the rest of the participative countries use a so-called cross-curricular approach, to integrate coding or computing in other subjects, mostly mathematics, e.g. in Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Slovakia, Spain and France. Finland is the first country to introduce programming in a purely cross-curricular approach (European Schoolnet, 2015) and Hiltunen (2016) shows in his study that the idea of integrating programming into other subjects is preferable to Finnish teachers, rather than that programming will be a separate subject.
The report “IT usage and IT skills in the school National Agency for IT monitoring in 2015” (Skolverket, 2016b) shows that the NAE have development plan for technological devices. For example, the NAE’s vision is children in pre-school and pre-school year will have access to digital tools equivalent to at least a tool per five children (1: 5) within four years and pupils in primary school and the corresponding school forms of grades 1-9 will have access to a personal digital tool (1: 1) within three years.
27
7. Conclusion
The aim of my study is to investigate how teachers perceive programming, how teachers prepare themselves for teaching programming, how teachers teach programming, what the hindrances the teachers are facing in teaching programming, and what the teachers’ opinions regarding the NAE’s suggestion to include programming in the upcoming curriculum.
Teachers perceive programming as an important skill for pupils to learn in school. However, none of TE teachers starts to prepare themselves for teaching programming yet. Teachers seem to have the same understanding that programming is to code or to write program to control technological devices. There appears to be some confusion over the definition of terms such as “ICT” and “programming”. This misunderstanding can be seen in the findings of how teachers prepare themselves for teaching programming and how they teach programming. Around half of the TE teachers prepare themselves for teaching programming by taking courses in high school or university. The other half prepare by self-study. The teachers seem to focus only on programming and code when they prepare knowledge for themselves and when they teach programming to their pupils.
Five hindrances have been discussed previously. They are inadequate knowledge in programming, time constraint caused by the congestion of the subject matter, financial support in form of teaching materials, technical equipment both hardware and software from municipalities and schools, lack of prerequisite knowledge in programming in preschool – grade 6 and lack of cooperative colleague.
Finally, there are several suggestions from the teachers to the NAE regarding having programming as a part of the compulsory school curriculum. The teachers suggest that the NAE should focus on:
1. Writing clear goals and knowledge requirements for teachers
2. Working with teachers’ attitude and giving proper training for teachers to improve skills and knowledge development in teaching programming
3. Financial support for creating teaching materials or educational materials to helps pupils to meet knowledge requirement and goals, and better and more technological equipment both hardware and software
28
4. Removing some principal contents in curriculum to make some room for programming,
5. Including programming into subjects like technology, handcraft 6. Developing collegial cooperation and cooperation with other subjects. 7. Giving responsibility of teaching programming to teachers who already have
programming knowledge
In conclusion, today we are living in a world where many people are dependent on information technology and technological equipment. Computer skills are becoming increasingly important in modern society. Many countries are starting to introduce programming as a foundation skill alongside reading, writing and mathematics to their young pupils. In Sweden, the NAE suggests that every student should learn programming and programming will be a part of mathematics and technology subjects in Swedish compulsory school.
Since, programming, computing or computational thinking is not included in teacher education programmes in Sweden (Heintz et al., 2015, Rolandsson, 2009), the NAE should give teachers clear goals and knowledge requirements for teaching programming. Moreover, teachers should get the right training to improve skills and knowledge development in teaching programming. The definition of terms such as “computational thinking” and “programming” should be introduced to teachers before including programming into the curriculum. Due to the teacher is a key person who plays a central role in how programming will be developed in the classroom. Therefore, the teacher needs adequate knowledge to be able to set the basic didactic questions about what to teach, how to teach, for whom and why.
Teaching computational skills, teachers do not need to use computer programming as an only tool to teach. There are many strategies (see 3.3) that teachers can use to teach computational skills successfully without any help of technological equipment. For that reason, inadequate technological equipment should not be a hindrance of teaching programming or computational thinking.
The biggest limitation to this work was the tight schedule and finding voluntary informants. My plan for data collection was in the time period that almost all of the
29
teachers in Sweden specially in lower level of compulsory school had very tight schedules. Probably the second hardest was to find suitable articles.
As another area of further investigation, I suggest that more research is carried out on the teachers' attitude towards teaching and learning programming or implementation of strategies for learning computational thinking or programming and the impact on students’ learning.
30
References
Björk, L-E. (1983). Datorers intåg i svensk skola. Nämnaren, 1. http://ncm.gu.se/pdf/namnaren/3235_83-84_1.pdf
Blurton, C. (1999). New directions of ICT-use in education. Retrieved March 25, 2017, from http://www.unesco.org/education/educprog/lwf/dl/edict.pdf
Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Department for Education. (2013) Statutory guidance: National curriculum in England: computing programmes of study. Retrieved March 17,2017, from
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-curriculum-in-england-
computing-programmes-of-study/national-curriculum-in-england-computing-programmes-of-study
Dube, A. (2010, November 11). Research Methods: Surveys and Questionnaires [Blog post]. Retrieved March 25, 2017, from
http://conductingresearch.blogspot.se/2010/11/questionnaires-obtaining.html
European Schoolnet. (2015). Computing our future: Computer programming and coding Priorities, school curricula and initiatives across Europe.
Heintz, F., Mannila, L., Nygårds, K., Parnes, P. & Regnell, B. (2015). Computing at School in Sweden – Experiences from Introducing Computer Science within Existing Subjects. Informatics in Schools. Curricula, Competences, and Competitions /Lecture Notes in Computer Science and General Issues, 118. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-25396-1_11
Hiltunen, T. (2016). Learning and Teaching Programming Skills in Finnish Primary Schools – The Potential of Games. University of Oulu, Retrieved December 16, 2016, from http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:oulu-201605221873
Kjällander, S. Åkerfeldt, A. & Petersen, P. (2016). Översikt avseende forskning och erfarenheter kring programmering i förskola och grundskola. from
http://omvarld.blogg.skolverket.se/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2016/06/oversikt_programmering_i_skolan.pdf
National Research Council. (2010). Committee for the Workshops on Computational Thinking: Report of a workshop on the scope and nature of computational
31
thinking. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12840
Rolandsson, L. (2009). Teachers´ perceptions about learning programming. In Proceedings PATT-22 Conference. Strengthening the Position of Technology Education in the Curriculum, 24-28 August (p. 361).
Rolandsson, L. (2015). Programmed or Not: A study about programming teachers’ beliefs and intentions in relation to curriculum. Retrieved October 21, 2016, from
https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:791197/FULLTEXT02.pdf
Rolandsson, L. & Skogh, I.B. (2014). Programming in school: Look back to move forward. ACM Transactions on Computing Education 14(2), 1–25.
Sentance, S. & Csizmadia, A. (2017). Computing in the curriculum: Challenges and strategies from a teacher’s perspective. Education and Information Technologies, 22(2), 469–495
Skolverket. (2011). Curriculum for the compulsory school, preschool class and the recreation centre, 2011. Retrieved March 17, 2017, from
https://www.skolverket.se/om-skolverket/publikationer/visa-enskild-publikation?_xurl_=http%3A%2F%2Fwww5.skolverket.se%2Fwtpub%2Fws%2F
skolbok%2Fwpubext%2Ftrycksak%2FBlob%2Fpdf2687.pdf%3Fk%3D2687
Skolverket. (2016a). Redovisning av uppdraget om att föreslå nationella it-strategier för skolväsendet – förändringar i läroplaner, kursplaner, ämnesplaner och examensmål. Dnr U2015/04666/S. Retrieved February 28, 2017, from
https://www.skolverket.se/om-skolverket/publikationer/visa-enskild-publikation?_xurl_=http%3A%2F%2Fwww5.skolverket.se%2Fwtpub%2Fws%2F
skolbok%2Fwpubext%2Ftrycksak%2FBlob%2Fpdf3668.pdf%3Fk%3D3668
Skolverket. (2016b) Redovisning av uppdraget om att föreslå nationella ITstrategier för skolväsendet. Retrieved October 21, 2016, from https://www.skolverket.se/om-
skolverket/publikationer/it-i-skolan?_xurl_=http%3A%2F%2Fwww5.skolverket.se%2Fwtpub%2Fws%2Fskol
