skip to main content
10.1145/3361721.3361725acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswipsceConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

The Effects of a Professional Development Workshop Focusing on Action Research on the Practice of High-School Computer Science Teachers

Published: 23 October 2019 Publication History

Abstract

The practice of teaching involves constant learning and professional growth. Professional development (PD) is necessary even for qualified in-service teachers, allowing them to enhance their disciplinary knowledge, acquire and become familiar with new pedagogical approaches, and deepen their content-pedagogical skills. Educators have suggested incorporating action research (AR) -- in which teachers conduct small-scale research in their own classes -- into PD of K-12 in-service teachers. An effective combination of PD and AR should, among other things, be long-term, be connected to the teachers' practice, and rely on the perspective of teachers' pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). We report on a unique PD on AR for in-service computer science (CS) K-12 teachers. This PD included a longitudinal workshop for experienced high-school CS teachers. The teachers performed AR in their own classrooms, investigating topics that they chose, based on their own personal practice, and motivated by authentic teaching challenges that they faced. In line with situated learning theory, the workshop was conducted in a rich social context. This context allowed for constant constructive feedback from peers and fostered effective reflection processes. Our findings indicate that the unique experience that the teachers underwent within the social context significantly influenced and improved their practice.

References

[1]
Michal Armoni. 2011. Looking at secondary teacher preparation through the lens of computer science. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 11, 4, Article 23, 38 pages.
[2]
Hanna J. Arzi, and Richard T. White. 2008. Change in teachers' knowledge of subject matter: A 17-Year longitudinal study. Science Education, 92, 2, 221--251.
[3]
Beatrice Avalos. 2011. Teacher professional development in teaching and teacher education over ten years. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 10--20.
[4]
Ronit Ben-Bassat Levy, and Mordechai Ben-Ari. 2007. We work so hard and they don't use it: Acceptance of software tools by teachers. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, 246--250.
[5]
Amanda Berry, and Jan H. Van Driel. 2012. Teaching about teaching science: Aims, strategies and backgrounds of science teacher educators. Journal of Teacher Education, 64, 2, 117--128.
[6]
Ofra Brandes, and Michal Armoni. 2019. Using action research to distill research-based segments of pedagogical content knowledge of K-12 computer science teachers. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, 485--491.
[7]
David Clarke, and Hilary Hollingsworth. 2002. Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 947--967.
[8]
Philippa Cordingley, Miranda Bell, Barbara Rundell, and Donald Evans. 2003. The impact of collaborative CPD on classroom teaching and learning. In: Research Evidence in Education Library. Version 1.1. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education.
[9]
Linda Darling-Hammond, Ruth Chung Wei, Alethea Andree, Nikole, Richardson, and Stelios Orphanos. 2009. Professional Learning in the Learning Profession: A Status Report on Teacher Development in the United States and Abroad. National Staff Development Council. http://learningforward.org/docs/pdf/nsdcstudy2009.pdf Accessed 11 June, 2019.
[10]
Pardeep Dass, Avi R. Hofstein, Karen Dawkins, and John Penick. 2008. Action research as professional development of science teachers. In: I. V. Erikson (Ed). Science Education in the 21st Century. 205--240. NOVA Publishers, Inc. New York, NY.
[11]
Christopher Day. 1993. Reflection: a necessary but not sufficient condition for professional development. British Educational Research Journal, 19, 1, 83--93.
[12]
Barbara Ericson, Michal Armoni, Judith Gal-Ezer, Deborah Seehorn, Chris Stephenson, and Fran Trees. 2008. Ensuring Exemplary Teaching in an Essential Discipline: Addressing the Crisis in Computer Science Teacher Certification. The Computer Science Teachers Association. New York, NY.
[13]
Sally Fincher, and Marian Petre. 2004. Computer Science Education Research. Taylor & Francis Group plc, London, UK.
[14]
Barney G. Glaser, and Anselm L. Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine, Chicago.
[15]
Kenneth, R. Howey, and Pamela L. Grossman. 1989. A Study in contrast: Sources of pedagogical content knowledge for secondary english. Journal of Teacher Education, 40, 5, 24--31.
[16]
Egon G. Guba, and Yvonna S. Lincoln. 1981. Effective Evaluation. Jessev Bass. San Francisco.
[17]
Bruria Haberman, Ela Lev, and Dorothy Langley. 2003. Action research as a tool for promoting teacher awareness of students' conceptual understanding. In Proceedings of the 8th Annual SIGCSE Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, 144--148.
[18]
Conley Hathorn, and Anna Marie Dillon. 2018. Action research as professional development: Its role in education reform in the United Arab Emirates. Issues in Educational Research, 28, 1, 99--119.
[19]
Orit Hazzan, Judith Gal-Ezer, and Lenore Blum. 2008. A Model for high school computer science education: The four key elements that make it! In Proceedings of the 2008 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 281--285.
[20]
James Hiebert, Anne Morris, and Brad Glass. 2003. Learning to learn to teach: An "experiment" model for teaching and teacher preparation in mathematics. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 6, 201--222.
[21]
Aleata Hubbard. 2018. Pedagogical content knowledge in computing education: A review of the research literature. Computer Science Education, 28, 2, 117--135.
[22]
Joseph Keating, Rosario Diaz-Greenberg, Mark Baldwin, and Jacqueline Thousand. 1998. A collaborative action research model for teacher preparation programs. Journal of Teacher Educion, 49, 5, 381--390.
[23]
Herman Koppelman. 2008. Pedagogical content knowledge and educational cases in computer science: An exploration. In Proceedings of the Informing Science & IT Education Conference (InSITE'08), 125--133.
[24]
Jean Lave, and Etienne Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
[25]
Dan Leyzberg, and Christopher Moretti. 2017. Teaching CS to CS Teachers: Addressing the need for advanced content in K-12 professional development. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 369--374
[26]
Neomi Liberman, Yifat Ben-David Kolikant, and Catriel Beeri. 2012. "Regressed experts" as a new state in teachers' professional development: Lessons from computer science teachers' adjustments to substantial changes in the curriculum. Computer Science Education, 22, 3, 257--283.
[27]
Alex Lishinski, Jon Good, Phil Sands, and Aman Yadav. 2016. Methodological rigor and theoretical foundations of CS education research. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research, 161--169.
[28]
Shirley Magnusson, Joseph Krajcik, and Hilda Borko. 1999. Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsom, & N. Lederman (Eds.), PCK and Science Education, 95--132. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands.
[29]
Rachel Mamlok-Naaman, and Ingo Eilks. 2012. Different types of action research to promote chemistry teachers' professional development--- a joined theoretical reflection on two cases from Israel and Germany. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 10, 581--610.
[30]
Rachel Mamlok-Naaman, Oshrit Navon, Miriam Carmeli, and Avi Hofstein. 2003. Teachers research their students' understanding of electrical conductivity. Journal of Chemichal Education, 62, 13--19.
[31]
Lauren Margulieux, Tuba A. Ketenci, and Adrienne Decker. 2019. Review of measurements used in computing education research and suggestions for increasing standardization. Computer Science Education, 29, 1, 49--78.
[32]
M. Cecilia Martínez, Marcos J. Gómez, Marco Moresi, Luciana Benotti. 2016. Lessons learned on computer science teachers professional development. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, 77--82.
[33]
Judy McKay, and Peter Marshall. 2001. The dual imperatives of action research. Information Technology & People, 14, 1, 46--59.
[34]
Mary J. Melrose. 2001. Maximising the rigour of action research? Why would you want to? How could you? Field Methods, 13, 2, 160--180.
[35]
Muhsin Menekse. 2015. Computer science teacher professional development in the United States: A review of studies published between 2004 and 2014. Computer Science Education, 25, 4, 325--350.
[36]
Craig A. Mertler. 2013. Classroom-based action research: Revisiting the process as customizable and meaningful professional development for educators. Journal of Pedagogic Development, 38--42.
[37]
Briana Morrison, Lijun Ni, and Mark Guzdial. 2012. Adapting the disciplinary commons model for high school teachers: Improving recruitment, creating community. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research, 47--54.
[38]
Lijun Ni, and Mark Guzdial. 2012. Who AM I?: Understanding high school computer science teachers' professional identity. In Proceedings of the 43rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 499--504.
[39]
Lijun Ni, Mark Guzdial, Allison Elliott Tew, Briana Morrison, and Ria Galanos. 2011. Building a community to support HS CS teachers: The disciplinary commons for computing educators. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 553--558.
[40]
Tracie E. Reding, and Brian Dorn. 2017. Understanding the "teacher experience" in primary and secondary CS professional development. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research, 155--163.
[41]
Mara Saeli. 2012. Teaching programming for secondary school: A pedagogical content knowledge based approach. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Technical University Eindhoven. Netherlands.
[42]
Donald A. Schön. 1987. Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Towards a New Design for Teaching and Learning in the Profession. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
[43]
Asher Shkedi. 2005. Multiple Case Narrative: A Qualitative Approach to Studying Multiple Populations. John Benjamins Publishing Company. Amsterdam.
[44]
Shulman, L. S. 1983. Autonomy and obligation: The remote control of teaching. In L. S. Shulman & G. Sykes (Eds.), Handbook of Teaching and Policy. New York: Longman.
[45]
Lee S. Shulman. 1986. Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15, 2, 4--14.
[46]
Lee S. Shulman. 1987. Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1, 1--21.
[47]
Lee S. Shulman. 1992. Toward a pedagogy of cases. In J. Shulman (Ed.), Case Methods in Teacher Education, 1--29. Teachers College Press, New York, NY.
[48]
Josh Tenenberg, and Sally Fincher. 2007. Opening the door of the computer science classroom: The disciplinary commons. In Proceedings of the 38th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, 514--518.
[49]
William, T. Truesdale. 2003. The implementation of peer coaching on the transferability of staff development to classroom practice in two selected Chicago public elementary schools. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64, 3923. (University Microfilms No. 311285).
[50]
Jan H. Van Driel, Douwe Beijaard, and Nico Verloop. 2001. Professional development and reform in science education: The role of teachers' practical knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 2, 137--158.
[51]
Jan H. Van Driel, Jacobiene A. Meirink, Klaas van Veen, and R. C. Zwart. 2012. Current trends and missing links in studies on teacher professional development in science education: A review of design features and quality of research. Studies in Science Education, 48, 2, 129--160.
[52]
Jennie Whitcomb, Hilda Borko, and Dan Liston. 2009. Growing talent: Promising professional development models and Practices. Journal of Teacher Education, 60, 3, 207--212.
[53]
Celal Yigit, and Birsen Bagceci. 2017. Teachers' opinions regarding the usage of action research in professional development. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 5, 2, 243--252.

Cited By

View all

Index Terms

  1. The Effects of a Professional Development Workshop Focusing on Action Research on the Practice of High-School Computer Science Teachers

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    WiPSCE '19: Proceedings of the 14th Workshop in Primary and Secondary Computing Education
    October 2019
    127 pages
    ISBN:9781450377041
    DOI:10.1145/3361721
    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    In-Cooperation

    • GI: Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V.
    • University of Glasgow: University of Glasgow

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 23 October 2019

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. Action research
    2. K-12
    3. PCK
    4. professional development

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Conference

    WiPSCE'19

    Acceptance Rates

    WiPSCE '19 Paper Acceptance Rate 23 of 43 submissions, 53%;
    Overall Acceptance Rate 104 of 279 submissions, 37%

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)13
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)2
    Reflects downloads up to 23 Dec 2024

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all

    View Options

    Login options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media