Exploring Teacher Reactions Towards a 21

Century Teaching and

Learning Approach to Continuing Professional Development

Programme in Computer Science

Lorraine Fisher, Jake Rowan Byrne and Brendan Tangney

Centre for Research in IT in Education (CRITE), School of Education and School of Computer Science & Statistics,

Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

Keywords: Teacher Continuing Professional Development, Computer Science, Evaluation, 21

Century Learning.

Abstract: Bridge21 is a particular model of 21

Century teaching and learning and this paper describes a pilot study to

evaluate its use for teacher Continuing Professional Development (CPD) in Computer Science (CS). The

CPD programme covered a range of introductory Computer Science topics including; Computational

Thinking, Scratch, Raspberry Pi Input/Outputs and Python. The researchers combined training programme

evaluation theory (Kirkpatrick, 1994) with ethnographic methods (Fetterman, 1987) to analyze qualitative

and quantitative data gathered from 110 in-service teachers whom attended 9 CS CPD workshops. The

Kirkpatrick framework was used as a taxonomy against which to code data relating to (a) teachers reactions

towards the CS CPD programme and (b) intentions towards use of the Bridge21 model for supporting CS

classroom delivery. A combination of coding procedures generated four themes that address two research

questions. Question one explored to what extent the 21

Century learning model proved effective for CS

CPD programme delivery, while question two explored the extent to which teachers intended to use the

learning model for delivery of CS topics in the classroom. Findings indicate that teachers’ initial reactions

towards the programme were positive and that teachers intend to use the model for their CS delivery.

1 INTRODUCTION

Current research highlights the need to understand

what supports post-primary Computer Science

teachers’ need to deliver lessons which encourage

their students become more active in their learning

(Cunny, 2011). Computing lessons provide rich

environments teachers can use to help their students

develop content knowledge and skills applicable to

real world contexts (Kirkwood, 2000). Problem

based activities enable students to develop a deeper

understanding of educational phenomena (Wells,

1991). Developing problem solving skills is

perceived as a core component of computer science

education (Fee and Holland-Minkley, 2010).

Incorporating problem solving activities into

computing lessons (O'Grady, 2012) may in turn help

teachers help their students learn computing and

encourage them to become more active learners

(Hazzan et al., 2010).

1.1 Educational Context

This study is situated within the evolving context of

Century education, in which teachers are

increasingly adopting student-centred, technology

mediated approaches to instruction (Beetham and

Sharpe, 2013). Teacher adoption of these methods

across second level education coincides with the

emergence of the Computer Science (CS) curricula

in a number of European countries including the

United Kingdom (Brown et al., 2014) and the

Republic of Ireland (NCCA, 2014a). Teachers

without formal qualifications in computing, perceive

computing as a complex subject to teach and a

difficult subject for students to learn (Yadav and

Korb, 2012). Hence there is a need for innovative

CS CPD programmes to empower teachers to meet

the challenges they face in mastering CS content and

developing appropriate strategies for transforming

the teaching of CS in their schools (Sentance et al.,

2013).

353

Fisher L., Rowan Byrne J. and Tangney B..

Exploring Teacher Reactions Towards a 21St Century Teaching and Learning Approach to Continuing Professional Development Programme in

Computer Science.

DOI: 10.5220/0005432603530362

In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU-2015), pages 353-362

ISBN: 978-989-758-108-3

 2015 SCITEPRESS (Science and Technology Publications, Lda.)

1.1.1 Paper Structure

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows.

The literature review sets up the argument

supporting use of two research questions to explore

the effectiveness of a social constructivist approach

to Computer Science (CS) Continuing Professional

Development. The proceeding methodology and

data analysis sections, describe the evaluation

framework and data processing procedures used to

gather and analyse data according to the research

questions. The findings and discussion section

brings together results clustered into themes to

explore the implications of using a social

constructivist approach to CPD delivery for CS

teachers. The concluding section summaries the

findings and suggests areas for further research.

2 LITERATURE

century learning is a pedagogical move from

didactic, curricula centric, teacher-centred methods

of delivery (Bybee and Fuchs, 2006) towards

facilitated, student-centred methods of instruction

(Noonan, 2013). A 21

century approach to teaching

involves the use of instructional techniques such as

orchestration and facilitation to help the learner

construct meaning and understanding by themselves

(Hein, 1995). Orchestration and facilitation methods

incorporate the use of social learning protocols such

as peer based learning, social interaction, and social

discourse to help learners move towards greater

learning autonomy (Vygotsky, 1978). An increase in

learner autonomy may result in the gradual

withdrawal of teacher-centred delivery methods

(Lier, 2007). Changing the instructional dynamics of

the classroom to support 21

century teaching and

learning is somewhat complex (Petersen and

Gorman, 2014) and there are those who argue

against the use of 21

century models (Silva, 2009).

2.1 Teaching Computer Science in the

Republic of Ireland

As stated earlier a number of education systems are

promoting the inclusion of CS at second level. In the

Republic of Ireland, short courses in Digital Media

(NCCA, 2014b) and Coding (NCCA, 2014a) are

available for the first time in schools across the first

three years or junior cycle levels (ages 12 – 15) of

the curricula. These courses promote project work

using a wide range of digital media including coding

which aim to help learners develop expertise in the

design, construction and implementation of

computing generated artefacts. The syllabi provided

by the NCCA are exemplars and can be adapted by

the teacher or used as a guide. However, despite the

introduction of these new courses there is limited

CPD available to teachers that targets the type of

content as well as the 21

Century approach to

learning that is also promoted in these courses.

2.1.1 Bridge21 Pedagogy

Bridge21 is a pragmatic, pedagogical model of 21

century teaching and learning, elements of which

include team-based, project orientated, technology-

mediated activities (Lawlor et al., 2010). The model

is currently used by post-primary teachers across a

number of schools, in subjects ranging from history

(O'Donovan, 2015) to mathematics (Bray and

Tangney, 2013). The essential elements of the

Bridge21 learning model are: (1) technology-

mediated learning, (2) project based activities, (3)

structured team-based pedagogy, (4) recognition of

the social context of learning and (5) facilitation,

guiding and mentoring, with teachers orchestrating

these activities (Conneely et al., 2013).

The Bridge21 activity model consists of seven

sequential steps which form the basis of each lesson.

Lessons start with an optional (1) ‘set up phase’ in

which groups are formed and introductions are

made. This is followed by a (2) ‘warm up’ activity

which is designed to encourage divergent thinking

and get the teams working together and thinking

creatively. Next is the (3) ‘investigation stage’

which promotes convergent thinking and sets the

context of the workshop – groups are encouraged to

define a problem and research its context in

preparation for planning and creating an artefact.

The (4) ‘planning phase’ involves group negotiation

to assign tasks, roles and agree a schedule for the

delivery of work to be completed. The subsequent

creation phase is a cyclical process in which groups

(5) ‘implement’ their design. Finally groups are

invited to (6) ‘present’ group constructed artefacts to

their peers and share what they have learned. A final

(7) ‘reflection’ phase is used to consolidate the

learning.

2.1.2 Bridge21 CS CPD

In response to the twin challenges of empowering

in-service teachers to up-skill in order to teach CS

and the need to gain expertise in 21C teaching and

learning strategies the authors’ institution has

launched a Post Graduate Certificate in 21

Century

Teaching and Learning. This certificate is in its first

CSEDU2015-7thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation

354

year of delivery with 113 teachers registered on the

programme. Modules are delivered on campus

during weekends and school holidays to offer

maximum attendance. The programme consists of 12

modules, 4 of which are compulsory, with the

remaining 8 as optional modules. 6 modules relate to

computing and each is delivered using the Bridge21

(2015) learning and activity models.

The Digital Media Literacy module provides an

introduction to the Bridge21 model, while also

supporting the development of digital media editing

skills and providing examples of how to use the

Bridge21 model across a range of curriculum

subjects. Problem Solving for the 21

Century

provides the teachers with a set of activities that are

inspired by CS unplugged (Bell et al., 2009) in

which algorithmic thinking is approached without

the use of a computer. Introduction to

Programming uses Scratch to introduce basic

programming concepts through animation.

Intermediate Programming through game design

again utilizes Scratch to explore advanced concepts,

such as events and concurrency. Exploring

Computer Systems uses the Raspberry Pi in

conjunction with the Python programming language

to introduce embedded systems and inputs and

outputs. Advanced programming is introduced via

the Python text-based programming language, which

is used to solve a number of mathematical tasks.

2.1.3 Research Questions

Two exploratory questions underpin the research

designed to explore teacher reactions. Question one

explored the extent to which the Bridge21 model

proved effective for the delivery of the CS CPD

programme, while question two sought to explore

the extent to which teachers intend to use the

Bridge21 model in their classroom delivery. The

next section details the methods and evaluation

framework used to explore these questions.

3 METHODOLOGY

The evaluation framework used in this study was

adapted from a training programme evaluation

model used to explore corporate training

programmes (Kirkpatrick, 1994). The researchers

adapted this framework to measure educational

outcomes or objectives relating to the provision of

the Bridge21 CS CPD programme (Fisher, 2014).

Learning objectives relate to the participants ability

to understand and perform specific computer science

tasks (Medina et al., 2014), and use elements of the

Bridge21 model in the context of their classroom

teaching. Each module exposes teachers to the

Bridge21 learning and activity models and teachers

are encouraged to use a similar approach in teaching

CS.

3.1 Kirkpatrick Adaptation

The Kirkpatrick framework operates over four

levels. The first two levels refer to the training

offering itself while the subsequent two levels focus

on behaviour and its impact. Level 1 gathers

participant reactions to training and level 2 seeks

evidence of learning through the assessment of

skills, attitudes and content knowledge acquired in

the context of the training environment. Level 3

seeks evidence of behavioural changes as a result of

the training, and Level 4 seeks results based on

evidence on the use of the training within the context

of the workplace environment. All levels are

sequential in so far that data obtained from one

level, informs data collection in the next,

maintaining a ‘chain of evidence’ across data sets.

Table 1 describes each level and its purpose.

Table 1: Kirkpatrick Model.

Level Description Purpose Location

Level 1 –

Reactions

Reactions to

the training

Gather

evidence

relating to

participant

reactions to the

training

Training

Environment

Level 2 –

Learning

Learning by

the participants

Evidence of

learning

through the

assessment of

skills, attitudes

and content

knowledge

Level 3 –

Behaviour

Behavioural

changes

Evidence of

changes as a

result of the

training

Workplace

Environment

Level 4 –

Results

Evidence of

workplace

change

Results based

on evidence of

the use of the

training in the

workplace

3.1.1 Level 1 – Reactions Evaluation

This paper analyses the results of data obtained from

the distribution of a single page, hard copy Level 1

Reaction Instrument issued to individual participants

ExploringTeacherReactionsTowardsa21StCenturyTeachingandLearningApproachtoContinuingProfessional

DevelopmentProgrammeinComputerScience

355

at the end of each workshop. The reaction

instrument contained a combination of 12 closed

numeric questions and 4 open qualitative questions,

each of which were adapted from an existing

Kirkpatrick Level 1 Training Evaluation Form

(Kristiansen, 2007). This instrument was adapted to

gather participant reactions towards the workshop

design, role of the facilitator, suitability of facilities

and usefulness of the topics covered. Additional

questions included an improvements indicator

regarding more / less time spent on CS topics,

participant reactions towards the use of the Bridge21

model for learning CS, perceived changes to practice

as a result of the CS CPD intervention and perceived

use of the model for CS delivery.

3.2 Data Gathering Procedures

Participants opted to attend workshops on their own

accord, and thus were self-selecting. At the start of

each workshop the research team briefed

participants about the evaluation process and issued

each participant with an ethics consent form and

information sheet. Participants were then invited to

counter sign copies to consent to the use of their data

for research publication, or opt out and leave the

forms blank. A total of N = 63 forms, from 110

attendances from 9 CS CPD workshop deliveries

were received during October 2013 to May 2014. An

average of 12 individuals attended each workshop,

with some individuals attending one workshop, and

others attending one or more workshops over the

evaluation period. This paper includes responses

from participants whom provided written consent to

include their written accounts in published research.

4 DATA ANALYSIS

The researchers adopted an ethnographic approach

to the reconstruction of research findings (Denzin

and Lincoln, 2013). This approach views the

transcription and reconstruction of text responses as

a form of social discourse. A transcribed account is

‘limited insofar as it produces a partial perspective’

(Rosen, 1991), of phenomena. This is because ‘the

ethnographer interprets that which he or she

observes’ (ibid, 1991). In light of these limitations,

we argue that such accounts, while subjective, yield

rich and meaningful descriptions which are

reconstructed from the observation of phenomena at

a particular time and place (Tedlock, 1994). This

study brings together narrative segments from small

samples so these accounts may be unsuitable for

theoretical or statistical generalisation.

4.1 Quantitative Coding

Numeric data from five Likert quantitative scales

(arranged 1 Strongly Agree, to 7 Strongly Disagree)

were processed using SPSS statistical processing

software. SPSS calculated an average of means per

scale then produced a total percentile score per scale.

4.2 Qualitative Coding

All qualitative written responses were manually and

electronically transcribed, coded then stored in a

searchable database. Three iterations of manual

coding were performed against transcribed text

responses. This process resulted in the production of

64 textual codes from a total number of 253 database

records. Comparative coding was used to reduce the

qualitative data set. Comparative coding or

analytical induction seeks to extract dominant or

contradictory themes from the process of data

analysis (LeCompte and Schensul, 1999). This

technique underpinned the generation of four themes

from the coded data set. Table 2 illustrates the

iterative cycles used to reduce the overall data set.

Table 2: Coding Process.

Total Data Records 253

Inductive Coding Cycle 1 173

Deductive Coding Cycle 1 104

Deductive Coding Cycle 2 64

Themes 4

4.2.1 Themes

Four qualitative themes emerged from the

comparative coding process. The themes of ‘learner

autonomy’ and ‘content knowledge’ relate to the

research question one and the effective use of the

Bridge21 model for the provision of CS CPD

programme. While the themes of ‘lesson planning’

and ‘orchestration and facilitation,’ relate to

research question two and explore ways in which

participants intended to use the Bridge21 model in

the context of their own CS delivery in schools.

5 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

This section is organised as follows. Section 5.1

starts with discussion on statistical analysis of

participant reactions towards the workshop design,

CSEDU2015-7thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation

356

role of the facilitator, and suitability of facilities and

usefulness of the topics covered. The next section

(Section 5.2) discusses participants’ reactions

towards the effectiveness of the Bridge21 model for

the delivery of the CS CPD programme. Finally,

Section 5.3 discusses participant intentions towards

using the Bridge21 model in their CS delivery.

5.1 Overall Reaction

This section explores participant reactions’ towards

the success of the workshops in terms of providing

an overall satisfaction rating, a rating for the design

of the workshops, a rating for the use of facilitation

as a delivery method and a rating relating to the

usefulness of workshop activities / content.

5.1.1 Workshop Satisfaction

Two thirds or 86% response rate (from N=63

individual participants) strongly agreed that they

were satisfied with the Bridge21 CS CPD workshop

experience and that the workshops were worth

attending. Half of those participant responses (49%)

were awarded the strongest overall rating in terms of

levels of satisfaction towards the programme (1 =

Strongly Agree). In terms of expressing their

satisfaction with the CS CPD training intervention,

one participant commented that the workshop

experience would ‘help me integrate these topics

across (the) curriculum that I teach’ while another

participant stated that the workshop experience had

given them a ‘good understanding of how to apply

computing to other subjects’. Another participant

highlighted the possibility of using elements of the

Bridge21 model to introduce autonomous learning

into the classroom ‘I might be more inclined to let

students problem solve on their own.’ These

comments highlight intentions towards using the

Bridge21 model to support CS delivery in the

classroom.

5.1.2 Workshop Design

The majority of participants were satisfied with the

design of the workshops (77% response rate). One

participant expressed that they intended to ‘use the

workshop model’ in on return to classroom teaching,

while another participant stressed that they wanted

to use elements of the workshops to ‘bring in a

structured course (computing) into teaching’. Both

these participants indicate incorporating elements of

the Bridge21 model into their classroom delivery.

5.1.3 Facilitation Methods

Participants also reacted favourably to the use of

facilitation as a method for delivering CS to

professional in-service teachers (89% response rate).

One participant commented that the method of

delivery used in the workshops (i.e. the use of

mentoring and facilitation) had ‘helped me to

understand the basics (of computing) and focus on

them for the benefit of my students. This comment

highlights an initial acceptance towards using

facilitation and peer mentoring for exploring CS.

5.1.4 Workshop Activities and Content

Participants also registered a positive response rate

(87%) towards use of computing examples and

practical activities used during the workshops. One

participant liked the use of ‘teamwork and

collaboration’ for learning computing while another

participant explained the Bridge21 model provided a

‘good technique for team teaching.’ Another

participant commented that workshop experience

had enabled them to learned ‘new IT skills’ but that

they had also learned a ‘new approach to (teaching)

team activities’. These comments highlight

participant reactions towards using 21st century

pedagogy for learning new methods and CS content.

5.2 Reactions towards Bridge21 Model

Effectiveness for CS CPD

This section explores participant reactions towards

use of the Bridge21 model for CS CPD.

5.2.1 Content Knowledge

Again, participants reacted positively towards the

use of the Bridge21 model for learning computer

programming languages and as an aid to

understanding how to apply computing concepts.

One participant commented that they had obtained a

‘better knowledge of scratch’ while another

commented that they had learned ‘a better

understanding of python and similarities to scratch’.

In contrast, one participant commented that they

would need ‘more training in scratch, (as) I

wouldn’t be confident to deliver it in class yet.’ Two

other participants shared this view. One participant

stated that they would ‘need more workshops’ to use

Scratch in their classroom teaching, while a second

participant agreed with this view and commented

that they also did not yet ‘feel confident enough to

teach programming’ - indicating a need for more

training in order to deliver Scratch programming.

ExploringTeacherReactionsTowardsa21StCenturyTeachingandLearningApproachtoContinuingProfessional

DevelopmentProgrammeinComputerScience

357

Other participants registered an increased level in

the confidence in teaching computer programming,

as a result of the workshop experience. One

participant commented that they felt they had

obtained ‘more confidence in (using) computers in

classroom,’ while another participant stressed that

they would be able to ‘use scratch independently,’ as

a result of attending a scratch workshop. Another

participant commented that ‘I will be integrating

scratch in my classroom,’ while another participant

indicated that they ‘would try to introduce this

language (Scratch) to student’s that are interested in

coding.’ These examples highlight that some

participants were satisfied with a single training

intervention, while others required further

workshops in the same topic areas.

Using the Bridge21 model for the delivery of CS

CPD workshops also offered participants the

opportunity to experience a ‘different approach to

teaching computers.’ This experience enabled

participants to think about how ‘to introduce

teamwork in computer classes’. Another participant

stressed that the workshop experience had helped

them ‘to keep my teaching in scratch programming

up to date and relevant to students I teach’. Another

participant expressed that the workshop experience

had enabled them to ‘extend (their) knowledge of

raspberry pi technologies so that I may use it

successfully in the classroom.’ One participant also

concurred with this statement stressing that the

workshop experience had ‘introduced me to the

possibility of using the raspberry pi.’ The Bridge21

workshop experience appeared to have helped

participants engage with computing concepts and

programming languages, helped participants identify

and address potential knowledge gaps and helped

participants explore how they might adopt a

Bridge21 approach to teaching CS in their schools.

5.2.2 Learner Autonomy

The Bridge21 CS CPD workshop experience also

provided participants with the opportunity to explore

the experience of ‘autonomous learning’. One

participant commented that the workshop experience

provided a supportive training environment which

enabled them to ‘approach group work in a different

manner (mistakes are ok!).’ Another participant

commented that the workshop experience had help

them to ‘be more open minded, (and) adaptable’

when learning new concepts, such as computer

programming. Another participant stressed that the

workshop experience had enabled them to ‘feel more

comfortable about working with scratch’ with a

subsequent participant commenting that the

experience enabled them to reach a level of expertise

in which they felt ‘able to pass on some knowledge

of what rasp pi is about’ to their students, on return

to the school classroom.

Another participant reflected on feeling

empowered to ‘promote self-directed learning’ with

their students, while another participant felt

equipped to begin ‘exploring possibilities’ as to how

they might delivery computing in the classroom

using the Bridge21 model. One participant stressed

that the workshop experience provided a platform

through which to help their students engage with a

variety of learning activities such as ‘collaboration,

the effect of group work, the diversity of ideas, and

filtering’ –techniques aimed at helping learners

explore and share their understanding of ideas.

However not all participants responded

favourably to the experience of autonomous

learning. One participant commented that delivering

more open ended learning experiences required

consideration of the ‘importance of preparation

materials’ while another expressed a need for more

formal ‘input on the tools’ used during computing

and programming activities. Another participant

stressed that professional development needs to

‘give us the tech skills rather than just “do it” tasks’

highlighting unease at learning computing through

peer supported, socially mediated group working.

5.3 Indented Use of the Bridge21

Models for Teaching CS

This section explores participant intentions towards

the use of the Bridge21 model for supporting

classroom delivery.

5.3.1 Lesson Planning

The majority of participants intended to use

computing concepts taught in the workshop setting

combined with elements of the Bridge21 model on

return to classroom teaching. One participant

intended to ‘use python to consolidate maths

problem solving,’ while another participant aimed to

‘use the raspberry pi to teach python’. Another

participant commented that they had learned ‘how to

develop and define a working algorithm’ and

intended to use elements of the Bridge21 model to

help them teach ‘Computational Thinking not just in

IT as I had done previously’. Another participant

commented that they intended to use aspects of the

Bridge21 model ‘in classroom activities,’ but

another participant stressed that they intended to use

CSEDU2015-7thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation

358

the model to help them ‘use group work more

carefully.’ Interesting, one participant commented

that the workshop experience enabled them to

‘create lesson plans and facilitate young people

using scratch.’

Exposure to the Bridge21 model had also helped

participants to think about how they might adjust

their delivery, to help their students engage with CS.

One participant commented that the workshop

experience had given them supports to think about

creating ‘a module for TY (Transition Years) / 1st

Years’ on programming.’ Another participant stated

that the workshop experience had given them ‘ideas

on how to introduce programming to my students’.

One participant commented that the workshop

experience had given them ‘a better understanding

of how I would utilise various resources in the

classroom,’ for teaching computing. A number of

participants also registered the intention to ‘integrate

scratch in some lessons,’ to develop ‘short courses

in IT and Transition Year IT programming’ with one

participant indicating that they ‘might talk to

principle about adopting the model’ in the context of

their classroom teaching. Another participant shared

this view and indicated that they also planned to

‘adopt the model in classroom as well.’

In terms of using the Bridge21 model to support

the delivery of CS, one participant stated that the

workshop experience had equipped them sufficiently

to ‘introduce game design to my classes and develop

a module on it,’ while another participant wanted to

use elements of the models to ‘let students work

independently and figure out the coding problems,’

with a third indicating that they intended to use the

models as a mechanism to help them ‘introduce

more project based group work’ into teaching.

5.3.2 Orchestration and Facilitation

Exposure to the Bridge21 learning model enabled

participants to explore how they might adopt or use

century teaching methods in their classroom

delivery, on return to the classroom. This exposure

enabled participants to think about how to ‘run

group sessions differently.’ One participant reflected

that learning how to orchestrate group work is a

skill, as ‘groups can be successful, but with careful

make-up.’ Another participant commented that

group working methods can assist in ‘keep moving

things along,’ while another participant had learned

a technique to help them to ‘ask more questions of

class, (and) give less answers’ as a means of

supporting students engage with learning materials.

One further participant commented that this

approach might create a learning environment for

‘pupils in class to help each other.’ Another

participant commented that the Bridge21 model

provided a mechanism by which to control the

‘pacing, input, leave students to it,’ with the aim of

giving student learners, time, space and educational

supports to explore phenomena.

The Bridge21 CS CPD workshop experience

enabled participants to visualise how they might

orchestrate learning experiences using the Bridge21

models. One participant commented that they ‘could

see clearly how it (the Bridge21 model) may be used

in a classroom context’ while another participant

commented that they might ‘experiment with the

methodology in class.’ These comments capture an

openness to ‘try new things with my class.’ The

Bridge21 CS CPD workshop experience not only

created opportunity for participants to ‘try out more

teamwork and self-directed teaching’ and ‘promote

self-directed learning,’ Bridge21 model exposure

enabled participants to explore how they might

organise learning activities to encourage student

autonomy, and try them out before use in class.

In terms of teaching computing and

programming, one participant commented that the

Bridge21 CS CPD workshop experience had enabled

them to reflect on the issue that ‘programming is

possible but it takes a lot of time.’ Two further

participants echoed that when learning to program it

is important ‘not give up as easily,’ or to ‘never give

up.’ Another participant shared this view and

commented, the Bridge21 model may be perceived a

way to help teachers ‘talk less in class and get pupils

to do more.’ This comment is situated in the context

that 21st century pedagogical models emphasise that

it is ‘the process not the technology’ which helps the

learner achieve their educational and learning goals.

Finally, one participant stressed that ‘learning by

doing works,’ hinting at the emergence of a sub

theme relating to self-directed learning. This is

encapsulated in the following participant comment –

in which ‘learning in order to achieve a specific task

and figuring it out is more motivating that just

learning because you have to.’ These comments

illustrate ways in which the Bridge21 CS CPD

workshop experience and use of the Bridge21

pedagogical models provided participants with an

experience which enabled them to explore and learn

computing concepts, but also with the opportunity to

consider how and in what ways they might apply or

adapt elements of those experiences in the context of

their classroom teaching to help students learn CS.

ExploringTeacherReactionsTowardsa21StCenturyTeachingandLearningApproachtoContinuingProfessional

DevelopmentProgrammeinComputerScience

359

6 CONCLUSIONS

This paper set out to explore the extent to which the

Bridge21 model proved effective for the delivery of

the CS CPD programme, and to understand the

extent to which teachers intend to use the Bridge21

model in their classroom delivery. The Bridge21

model provided a context which enabled teachers to

explore computer science from a number of

perspectives, whether conceptually through the

completion of project work, or practically through

participation in hands on coding and programming.

While some participants liked this approach, and

felt confident to use what they had learned in the CS

CPD workshops in this classroom with their

students, a number of teachers expressed the need

for further workshops combined with additional

training and supports to develop computing

expertise, prior to demonstrating CS concepts in

front of students. In terms of understanding how to

apply CS concepts in the classroom – the Bridge21

models provided teachers with a sequence or

structure through which they could explore and think

about how to adapt elements of the process for

integrating CS into their teaching. In some cases, the

model enabled teachers to explore how they might

change the social dynamics of the classroom, by

implementing learning experiences where the

answer to questions may not always be readability

available or where the process is used to support

learners find the solution to problems by themselves.

The Bridge21 model also provided teachers with

the opportunity to not only explore the mechanics of

an autonomous learning model, but also to explore

how to facilitate the delivery of such a model

through participation in group work and team based

projects. While reactions were generally positive

towards the use of the Bridge21 learning model for

the provision of a CS CPD programme, there is still

further work needed to look more closely at the way

in which the model supports learners engage with

CS concepts in the context of workshop delivery.

In terms of using the Bridge21 model to support

CS classroom delivery, teachers expressed a range

of views in terms of how they intended to use the

model in the context of their classroom teaching.

While some teachers intended to use elements of the

Bridge21 activity sequence to help organise the

delivery of CS classes across the curricula, other

teachers expressed an interest in using CS concepts,

and elements of the Bridge21 models to enhance the

delivery of other subject areas. Also, while some

teachers interested in teaching CS also aimed to

adopt the Bridge21 models to enhance their CS

delivery, other teachers looked to implement

elements of the model, such as group work and team

based activities as a means of helping their students

engage more ‘autonomously’ with the curricula.

6.1 Further Research

This paper started with the suggestion that helping

students become ‘more active in their learning’ lies

at the heart of a 21

century approach to teaching

and learning. However, teachers also need access to

professional development programmes which enable

them to upskill and develop techniques they can use

with confidence in the context of helping their

students take more empowered role in their learning.

The Bridge21 CS CPD programme uses a social

constructivist approach to CS delivery in an attempt

to help teachers meet the demands of the 21

century

classroom. The Bridge21 CS CPD programme also

seeks to help teachers learn and develop expertise in

CS, which may hopefully translate into the

classroom in ways which make CS delivery

interactive and engaging for both the teacher, and

their students. It is with this aim, that further

research is planned to explore use of the Bridge21

model as a mechanism for enhancing CS delivery.

CS is and remains a difficult subject to teach and

learn, and the authors hope that this paper sheds

some light on these difficulties, but also successes

inherent in using a social constructivist approach to

learning CS, in ways compatible with the 21

century school classroom.

6.1.1 Next Steps

This evaluation paper is the first in a series, which

seeks to understand the extent to which social

constructivist teaching and learning models enable

teachers to empower their students to take a more

active role in their learning. This paper explores the

first level of the Kirkpatrick framework, in order to

understand teacher reactions’ towards the Bridge21

CS CPD programme. Level 2 analysis is underway

to take a closer look at the impact of the CS CPD

workshop experience in helping the same teachers

learn computing concepts. The researchers have also

initiated Level 3 analysis to determine the extent to

which teachers have adapted workshop elements in

their subject teaching. It is still too early to draw

final conclusions based on the results (Level 4).

CSEDU2015-7thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation

360

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First, the authors would like to thank post primary

school teachers whom generously gave their consent

to include written contributions which appear in this

paper. Second, the authors would like to thank all

the staff at Bridge21 (www.Bridge21.ie), Trinity

College Dublin, Trinity Access Programme (TAP),

and Centre for Research into IT in Education

(CRITE) for their continued support and guidance,

and to Google Inc. for funding this research paper.

REFERENCES

Beetham, H. & Sharpe, R. 2013. Rethinking Pedagogy for

A Digital Age: Designing For 21st Century Learning,

Oxon, Uk, Taylor & Francis.

Bell, T., Alexander, J., Freeman, I. & Grimley, M. 2009.

Computer Science Unplugged: School Students Doing

Real Computing Without Computers. New Zealand

Journal of Applied Computing & Information

Technology, 13, 20-29.

Bray, A. & Tangney, B. Mathematics, Technology

Interventions And Pedagogy-Seeing The Wood From

The Trees. Csedu, 2013. 57-63.

Bridge21. 2015. Bridge21 [Online]. Dublin, Ie: Bridge21.

Available: Http://Www.Bridge21.Ie/.

Brown, N. C. C., Sentance, S., Crick, T. & Humphreys, S.

2014. Restart: The Resurgence of Computer Science in

UK Schools. Acm Transactions in Computing

Education (Toce), 14, 1-22.

Bybee, R. W. & Fuchs, B. 2006. Preparing the 21st

Century Workforce: A New Reform in Science and

Technology Education. Journal of Research in Science

Teaching, 43, 349-352.

Conneely, C., Murchan, D., Tangney, B. & Johnston, K.

21 Century Learning–Teachers’ And Students’

Experiences and Views of the Bridge21 Approach

Within Mainstream Education. Society for

Information Technology & Teacher Education

International Conference, 2013. 5125-5132.

Cunny, J. 2011. Transforming Computer Science

Education in High Schools Computer 44, 107-109.

Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. 2013. The Discipline and

Practice of Qualitative Research In: Denzin, N. K. &

Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.) The Landscape Of Qualitative

Research Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage Publications Ltd.

Fee, S. B. & Holland-Minkley, A. M. 2010. Teaching

Computer Science Through Problems, Not Solutions.

Computer Science Education, 20, 129-144.

Fetterman, D. M. 1987. Ethnographic Educational

Evaluation. In: Spindler, G. & Spindler, L. (Eds.)

Interpretive Ethnography of Education: At Home and

Abroad. Hillsdale, Nj: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Fisher, L. Evaluating Use of the Bridge21 Model for

Teacher Continuous Professional Development (Cpd)

In Computer Science (Cs). 11th European Evaluation

Society Biennial Conference (Ees), 2014 Dublin, Ie.

European Evaluation Society, 45-46.

Hazzan, O., Lapidot, T. & Ragonis, N. 2010. Teaching

Methods in Computer Science Education Guide to

Teaching Computer Science: An Activity-Based

Approach. London, Uk: Springer.

Hein, G. E. 1995. The Constructivist Museum. Journal of

Education in Museums 16, 21-23.

Kirkpatrick, D. L. 1994. Evaluating: Part of a Ten-Step

Process.

Evaluating Training Programs - The Four

Levels San Fransisco, Ca: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Kirkwood, M. 2000. Infusing Higher-Order Thinking And

Learning to Learn Into Content Instruction: A Case

Study of Secondary Computing Studies in Scotland.

Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32, 509-535.

Kristiansen, N. 2007. Making Smile Sheets Count,

Infoline No. 250402. In: Kirkpatrick, D. L. (Ed.) The

Four Levels Of Evaluation. Measurement &

Evaluation. Tips, Tools, and Intelligence for Trainers

Usa: American Society For Training And

Development (Astd).

Lawlor, J., Conneely, C. & Tangney, B. 2010. Towards A

Pragmatic Model for Group-Based, Technology-

Mediated, Project-Oriented Learning–An Overview Of

The B2c Model. Technology Enhanced Learning.

Quality of Teaching And Educational Reform. Berlin,

De: Springer.

Lecompte, M. D. & Schensul, J. J. 1999. Using Constant

Comparison And Analytical Induction To Identiy

Items Analyzing & Interpreting Ethnographic Data

London, Uk: Altamira Press.

Lier, L. V. 2007. Action-Based Teaching, Autonomy and

Identity. International Journal of Innovation In

Language Learning And Teaching, 1, 46-65.

Medina, J. A., Sanchez, J. J., Garcia-Lopez, E. & Garcia-

Cabot, A. Learning Outcomes Using Objectives With

Computer Science Students. Proceedings of The 2014

Conference On Innovation & Technology In Computer

Science Education, 2014. Acm, 339-339.

Ncca. 2014a. Short Course - Coding [Online]. Dublin:

National Council for Curriculum and Assessment.

Available: Http://www.Curriculumonline.ie/Junior-

Cycle/Short-Courses/Coding.

Ncca. 2014b. Short Course - Digital Media Literacy

[Online]. Dublin: National Council for Curriculum and

Assessment. Available: http://

www.curriculumonline.ie/Junior-Cycle/Short-

Courses/Digital-Media-Literacy.

Noonan, S. J. 2013. 21st Century Learners And Pedagogy

In Teacher Effectiveness And Learner-Centred

Practice How Real Teachers Learn To Engage All

Learners. Plymouth, UK: Rowman & Littlefield

Education.

O'donovan, D. 2015. Enquiry Based Learning at Bridge21

[Online]. Dublin, Ie. Available: Https://Sites.Google.

Com/Site/Enquirybasedlearningatbridge21/Home.

O'grady, M. J. 2012. Practical Problem Based Learning In

Computing Education Acm Transactions On

Computing Education 12, 10.

ExploringTeacherReactionsTowardsa21StCenturyTeachingandLearningApproachtoContinuingProfessional

DevelopmentProgrammeinComputerScience

361

Petersen, C. I. & Gorman, K. S. 2014. Strategies to

Address Common Challenges When Teaching in an

Active Learning Classroom In: Baepler, P., Brooks, D.

C. & Walker, J. D. (Eds.) Active Learning Spaces.

Hoboken, Nj: Wiley & Sons Inc.

Rosen, M. 1991. Coming To Terms With The Field:

Understanding And Doing Organizational

Ethnography. Journal of Management Studies, 28, 1 -

24.

Sentance, S., Dorling, M. & Mcnicol, A. 2013. Computer

Science in Secondary Schools in the UK: Ways To

Empower Teachers. Informatics In Schools.

Sustainable Informatics Education for Pupils of All

Ages. Berlin, De: Springer.

Silva, E. 2009. Measuring Skills for 21st-Century

Learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 90, 630-634.

Tedlock, B. 1994. Ethnography and Ethnographic

Representation. In: Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S.

(Eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand

Oaks, Ca: Sage Publications.

Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Interaction Between Learning And

Development In: Cole, M., John-Steiner, V., Scribner,

S. & Souberman, E. (Eds.) Mind In Society: The

Development Of Higher Psychological Processes.

London, Uk: Harvard University Press.

Wells, G. 1991. Towards A Social Constructivist Model

Of Learning And Teaching Dialogic Inquiry. Towards

A Sociocultural Practice and Theory of Education

Cambridge, Uk: Cambridge University Press.

Yadav, A. & Korb, J. T. 2012. Learning To Teach

Computer Science: The Need for A Methods Course.

Communications of the Acm, 55, 31-33.

CSEDU2015-7thInternationalConferenceonComputerSupportedEducation

362