Teacher Experiences of Learning Computing using a 21

Century

Model of Computer Science Continuing Professional Development

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, The University of Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

Keywords: Learning Computer Science, Teacher Professional Development, Social Constructivism, Evaluation.

Abstract: Computer Science (CS) is a subject which is perceived as a difficult to learn and to teach. Building on previous

work (Fisher et al., 2015), which explored post-primary school teacher reactions to a social constructivist

Continuing Professional Development (CPD) Programme in CS, this paper explores the same teachers’

experiences of learning CS during the workshops. The CS CPD workshops were delivered using the Bridge21

model of 21st century teaching and learning. This paper examines the extent to which the Bridge21 activity

model proved effective in helping teachers learn computing knowledge and skills and explores teacher

attitudes towards applying their new learning in the classroom. Nine workshops took place over the 2013/2014

academic year, resulting in 45 teaching hours and 110 teacher engagements. An exploratory case study

approach informed data collection with comparative coding used to analyse results. Analysis indicates that

peer-collaboration played an important role in assisting teachers develop computing knowledge and skills and

that teachers intend to use the Bridge21 model to teach computing in their own classrooms.

1 INTRODUCTION

This study is situated within the context of 21

century education, where teachers are encouraged to

use student-centred, technology-mediated teaching

and learning strategies to help students develop 21

century skills (Walser, 2008). Technology-mediated

learning experiences create rich contexts teachers can

use with students to develop 21

century skills such

as problems solving, team work and critical thinking

(English and Sriraman, 2010). Problem solving

activities used in a computing context enable students

to put into practice digital and critical thinking skills.

Autonomous learning involves developing the

confidence to apply learning strategies to solve

complex problems (Boud, 1988). Teachers can

empower students through facilitating technology

mediated lessons which use problem solving as a way

to help students develop problem solving strategies

(Smyth and Banks, 2012). Technology-mediated,

student-centred learning environments enable

teachers to help students learn problem solving while

also learning other 21

century skills such as critical

thinking, digital expertise and collaborative working.

Teacher adoption of teaching methods designed to

support 21

century learning coincides with the push

by the European Commission to encourage schools to

offer computer programming lessons in schools (EC,

2016). Against this backdrop the re-emergence of

computing at secondary level across the United

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

Republic of Ireland (NCCA, 2014), has prompted CS

educators to source Continuing Professional

Development (CPD) in order to upskill themselves to

meet the challenge of teaching CS.

The body of the paper is structured as follows. The

literature review provides the rational which

underpins the research questions and it is followed by

an outline of the methodology used. The data analysis

section describes the process used to code and

interpret the data and the discussion section explores

the study findings.

2 LITERATURE

Computer Science (CS) is perceived as a difficult

subject to learn (Zendler et al., 2012), with computer

programming perceived as being particularly difficult

(Connell et al., 2015). Information Communication

Technology (ICT) can play a key role in helping

students access resources and are useful for helping

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

Teacher Experiences of Learning Computing using a 21st Century Model of Computer Science Continuing Professional Development.

In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2016) - Volume 2, pages 273-280

ISBN: 978-989-758-179-3

273

students work through complex tasks (Brinda et al.,

2009). Student-centred learning approaches use

practical activities to help students develop key skills

(Baeten et al., 2010) and when combined with ICT

enables teachers to use problem solving as a way to

encourage students to work through computing

problems as a method of learning and understanding

coding.

2.1 Teaching Coding in a 21

Century

Style

Helping students learn computer programing or

coding remains problematic (Connell et al., 2015)

prompting teachers to seek assistance in designing

innovative coding lessons. A 21

century approach to

CS delivery, involving technology-mediated tasks

structured around problem solving activities provides

one possible solution, enabling students to develop a

combination of social, technical and cognitive skills

(Hazzan et al., 2014). Teacher CPD programmes

using a 21

century approach enable teachers to

obtain hands-on coding expertise in an environment

designed to support technical knowledge sharing

through peer collaboration (Bryant et al., 2006).

Exploring teachers’ attitudes to CS CPD provides

insight into what supports teachers need in order to

teach computing in schools. This could range from

assistance with developing content knowledge

through guidance with developing particular skills to

help to work through computing tasks all as part of

building the confidence to teach computing (Harland

and Kinder, 1997). This study sets out to explore

teacher attitudes in terms of understanding what

technical skills and computing knowledge teachers

learned from attending the Bridge21 CS CPD

programme.

2.2 Bridge21 CS CPD Programme

Bridge21 is a pragmatic model of 21st century

teaching and learning that has been used extensively

across a number of secondary schools in Ireland. It

uses a team-based model to promote peer-learning in

which the instructor orchestrates learning rather than

focusing on delivery of content (Lawlor et al., 2010).

It has been shown to encourage intrinsic motivation,

promote the development of 21C skills, and to be

suitable for delivering curriculum content (Lawlor et

al., 2015, Johnston et al., 2015). The Bridge21

activity model outlines the structural elements

necessary to delivery an effective 21C learning

experience and is partially inspired by ideas on

Design Thinking (Brown and Wyatt, 2010). It

consists of seven steps around which learning

activities can be designed: ‘Set-up, Warm-up,

Investigate, Plan, Create, Present and Reflect’.

2.2.1 Computing Workshops

The Bridge21 CS CPD programme discussed in this

paper consisted of six computing workshops. The first

“Digital Media and 21C Teaching and Learning” was

designed to introduce the Bridge21 model through a

hands on technology mediated learning experience.

The second workshop focused on “Problem Solving in

the 21

Century”; the third offered an “Introduction to

Programming through Animation using Scratch”; with

workshop four covering “Intermediate Programming

through Game Design using Scratch”. Workshop five

focused on “Advanced programming with Python”,

with six “Exploring Computer Systems with the

Raspberry Pi” (Byrne et al., 2015).

2.2.2 Research Questions

Having already explored teacher reactions to the

workshops (Fisher et al., 2015) this paper explores

teacher learning through two research questions.

Question one examined the extent to which the

workshops proved effective in helping teachers learn

computing knowledge and skills, while question two

explored teacher attitudes towards applying their

learning from the workshops in their own classrooms.

3 METHODOLOGY

The evaluation framework used to address the

research questions was adapted from that of

Kirkpatrick (1994). The Kirkpatrick framework has

been used to evaluate educational phenomena across

a number of contexts including evaluating teacher

performance (Naugle et al., 2000) and measuring

learning outcomes in teacher professional

development programmes (Coldwell and Simkins,

2011). While Kirkpatrick is criticised for its

deterministic structure (Kaufman et al., 1996, Holton,

1996, Bates, 2004) it has been adapted to evaluate

Continuing Professional Development (CPD) for in-

service teachers (Guskey, 2000) and it is this work

that guides the design of methods used to evaluate

teacher learning in this research.

3.1 Kirkpatrick Adaptation

Kirkpatrick operates over four levels. Level 1

explores participant reactions to a training

CSEDU 2016 - 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

274

intervention and Level 2 explores participant learning

(specified as attitudes, skills and knowledge). Level 3

examines perceived changes in behaviour while

Level 4 examines results in terms of changes made in

the workplace as a result of the training.

The authors are in the process of rollout of the full

Kirkpatrick framework to evaluate the delivery of the

Bridge21 CS CPD programme over a three year

period. Results from the administration of Level 1

Reaction Instruments are reporting positive reactions

to the CS CPD workshops (Fisher et al., 2015) and

that teachers intend using the Bridge21 model to

enhance their subject teaching (Byrne et al., 2015).

This paper focuses upon the perceptions of the

participants with regard to their learning.

3.1.1 Level 2 – Learning Evaluation

This paper presents results gained from the

administration of two data collection instruments.

Each were at Kirkpatrick Level 2 and explored

‘Skills’, ‘Knowledge’ and ‘Attitudes’. The first

instrument contained three open questions (Table 1).

Table 1: Bridge21-Individual Learning Form.

Open Questions

1 WHAT - What happened during this workshop?

What did you observe? What did you achieve?

What did your colleagues achieve? What went

well? What didn’t go well?

2 NOW WHAT- How will you apply what you

have learned today in your teaching? How will it

help you develop your students’ learning further?

How will you develop your learning further?

What information can you share with colleagues?

3 SO WHAT - What did you like / dislike about the

workshop? How did you respond? How did you

feel? Did you learn anything about yourself? Did

you learn anything about your colleagues?

Question 1 was mapped to the category of

‘Knowledge’; question 2 was mapped to the category

of ‘Skills’. Both items addressed research question 1.

The 3

question mapped to the ‘Attitudes’ category,

and addressed research question 2. The instrument

was administered per participant, per workshop.

The second instrument contained five open

questions (Table 2). Question 1 was mapped to the

category of ‘Knowledge’ and question 2 mapped to

the category of ‘Skills’, and together they addressed

research question 1. Questions 3, 4 and 5 were all

mapped to the category of ‘Attitudes’, and addressed

research question 2. This instrument was

administered per team, per workshop.

Table 2: Bridge21-Team Learning Form.

Open Questions

List 3 skills the team learned today.

List 3 skills the team would like to develop /

improve on.

Overall, how would the team rate their

performance?

Why does the team feel this way?

What was the team’s best achievement

today?

3.1.2 Data Gathering Procedures

Participants attended workshops on their own accord,

thus samples were self-selecting. The authors

provided an evaluation brief and issued participants

with an ethics form at the start of each workshop. A

total of N = 48 individual learning forms and N = 10

team learning forms were obtained from N = 110

attendees during the delivery of 9 workshops between

October 2013 to May 2014. These numbers include

responses from participants, whom attended more

than one workshop.

4 DATA ANALYSIS

The authors acknowledge that the reconstruction of

participant accounts are subject to author bias and

present one of multiple readings. Moreover, the

authors use quotations as primary data, cognisant of

possible misreading’s or unintended interpretations

made from the remodelling of participant data

(LeCompte and Goetz, 1982). Data presented for

analysis consists of text responses to questions

determined by the authors, in an attempt to shine light

on phenomena described in the research questions.

The following analysis may prove limited in

supporting broader generalisations (Lewis et al.,

2003), but instead attempts to render accounts

accessible in a form that yields one reading with

which to open further, more detailed conversations.

Text responses obtained from individual (Table 1)

and team (Table 2) forms were transcribed, coded

then stored in a searchable database. A total of N =

227 data base records were transcribed from hard

copy individual and team learning forms. The authors

used comparative coding to identify themes.

The qualitative data set comprised of individual

and team responses. The authors used comparative or

analytical coding (LeCompte and Schensul, 1999) to

reduce the data set. This involved open coding across

all records to look for similar concepts in the data

Teacher Experiences of Learning Computing using a 21st Century Model of Computer Science Continuing Professional Development

275

(inductive coding cycle 1). Two further deductive

coding cycles merged similar codes together,

generating N = 6 sub themes. Table 3 illustrates the

process used to reduce the data.

Table 3: Coding Process.

Total Data Records 227

Inductive Coding Cycle 1 125

Deductive Coding Cycle 1 56

Deductive Coding Cycle 2 30

Themes 6

The authors mapped each theme to one of

Kirkpatrick’s learning sub-categories of knowledge,

skills and attitudes. While the authors acknowledge

that code alignment is a subjective process (Goetz and

LeCompte, 1981) the process of coding and theming,

enabled the authors to look for and tease out and

explore similarities and differences between themes.

4.1 Themes

Six themes emerged from comparative coding. Table

4 maps each theme to a learning category.

Table 4: Mapping Themes to Learning Categories.

Knowledge Intrinsic Motivation

Computing Comprehension

Skills Computer Programming

Hardware

Attitudes Replicating Coding Activities

Social Constructivist Learning

The themes ‘intrinsic motivation’ and ‘computing

comprehension’ relate to knowledge; the themes

‘computer programming’ and ‘hardware’ relate to

skills and both these themes address research question

1. The themes ‘replicating coding activities’ and

‘social constructivist learning’ relate to ‘attitudes’

and speak to research question 2.

5 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

This section is organized as follows. Section 5.1

addresses research question 1 and examines the extent

to which workshops proved effective in helping

teachers learn computing knowledge and skills. The

next section (5.2) explores teacher attitudes towards

applying their learning in the context of teaching

students coding. The concluding discussion (Section

6) revisits the research questions and describes the

need for further research (Section 6.1).

5.1 Learning Computing Knowledge

and Skills

This section explores participant experiences of

learning computing, with particular focus on

developing computer programming / coding content

knowledge.

5.1.1 Knowledge

The workshops did enable participants to learn

computing concepts. For example one participant

reported obtaining a ‘good, practical understanding

of computer programming languages such as python’

while another participant commented that they too

had learned ‘how to use Raspberry Pi better, (and had

developed a greater understanding) of the potential

of what you can do’. The same participant continued

enthusiastically ‘I want to know more about all of it’.

Teamwork played an important role in helping

participants learn computing, captured in the

following comment: ‘I like being taken outside my

comfort zone. I may not have skill set to do some of

the computing tasks well, but I have a better

understanding of what is involved and maybe

prompted to learn more. (I also learned the) benefits

of collaboration with other subject teachers’.

Working together created an opportunity for

participants to share their learning with their peers.

5.1.2 Intrinsic Motivation

Working in a team played a key factor in helping

participants stay motivated to complete tasks. One

participant commented that ‘group work is essential

to keep yourself motivated when the programs are too

complex for the individual’. Another participant

concurred with this statement, ‘I liked the hands on

element. Felt motivated as part of team collaboration

to achieve objectives. I like to get things done, (and)

I like defined roles with a team’. Role division within

teams also helped to keep teams on track: ‘we worked

on a video and audio clip around a topic. Achieved

objective using a variety of software programs and

techniques. Great team, all motivated and stuck to the

charter of rights, respectful of each other’s

differences’. One reported that the learning model

provided ‘excellent steps for learning. I’m motivated

to proceed with this process of using digital

technology in classroom’.

Team dynamics played also an important role in

creating bonds and stay on track to complete tasks:

‘we stuck to our (team) motto’! We achieved all the

tasks; we worked well together’. Team bonding also

CSEDU 2016 - 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

276

Figure 1: Participants setting up a Controller.

helped participants succeed with difficult tasks such

as ‘completing the ambitious radar task’ which was

a hardware configuration task completed as part of

the Raspberry Pi workshop. Working in teams to

solve complex computational problems also helped

participants to gain in confidence, as demonstrated in

the following comment: ‘I worked well with my

partner to complete tasks. Felt more confident and

able to do tasks’. Team working proved useful as a

motivational tool, helping some participants achieve

their goals, and in some cases exceeded them.

5.1.3 Computing Comprehension

Completing the tasks assigned required participants

to develop problem solving skills: ‘we worked as a

team to create a project in Scratch. We noticed that

there was a lot of trial and error involved. We all took

on board new skills through our exploration. We felt

a sense of accomplishment’. However one participant

expressed the need for ‘more practice at tasks,

building and improving basic skills’. Learning

activities also provided participants with a context in

which to learn at their own pace; ‘I learned how to

program basic python tasks, and I felt that I could

pass on that learning to others’. Working together

and sharing tacit knowledge played a pivotal role in

helping participants develop the confidence to try out

new tasks or to jump in and offer assistance. Indeed,

the importance of peer-collaboration in the context of

learning computer programming is evident in the

following comment ‘I liked the teamwork, learning

from other people. I liked seeing the product of your

work. I learnt that my knowledge is limited and I

would like to learn more about programming’.

5.1.4 Skills

Participants enjoyed experiencing the Bridge21

approach, involving ‘Set-up, Warm-up, Investigate,

Plan, Create, Present and Reflect’ as a method for

learning computing skills. One participant reflected

that they had learned ‘about the bridge21 method.

Observed (use of the Bridge21) method in action. (I

also) achieved a very basic animation (and) the group

went well to share skills’. Another participant also

enjoyed the combined approach: ‘great learning

achieved, networking digital knowledge. A lot of

knowledge still to learn. Great capabilities in varying

skills in colleagues in group’. A further participant

had also enjoyed a collaborative approach to learning

computing ‘I learnt that it is possible to use the same

format, to take an unknown concept, research,

storyboard, records and present in a short time and

verify that learning has been achieved. With a group

of strangers, and quickly recognise, skills, aptitude,

have flexibility’.

5.1.5 Computer Programming

Participants again reported that teamwork played an

important factor in learning computer programming

skills. One participant commented that, when

learning programming ‘team work can be very

effective’. Practical programing tasks also facilitated

the ‘learning and sharing of expertise’ which helped

the same participant ‘achieve coding a set of activities

for animated characters in scratch. Teamwork went

well (however I will) need more time to consolidate

learning’. The workshops used cross over activities

to help participants make linkages between visual and

text based programming languages: ‘I learnt a nice

bridging approach to highlighting similarities

between scratch and python; I gained more

confidence with the syntax’. Using Scratch as an entry

point to the Python programming environment helped

one participant ‘engage with the software (and helped

me) learn to navigate the options …much is hidden.

More examples of good programming please…

‘Discovery’ takes time – 1 day not enough’!

Figure 2: Basic Scratch Animation.

5.1.6 Hardware

The workshops also exposed participants to

hardware. This experience helped one participant

‘learn about the Raspberry Pi set up and Makey-

Makeys. We successfully set up Raspberry Pi and

used Scratch on it. The circuitry breadboard piece

Teacher Experiences of Learning Computing using a 21st Century Model of Computer Science Continuing Professional Development

277

was challenging’. The experience of configuring

hardware helped another participant ‘learn about the

Raspberry Pi. (I) got to use. I got to play with Makey-

Makey (which I had only heard about before). I also

watched as breadboard was wired’. Providing

participants with the opportunity to unbox computing

hardware, install devices and install software linked

to controllers, allowed participants to ‘explore the

potential of computing hardware through group

work, successfully install the raspberry pi, and

explore python’.

5.2 Attitudes towards Computing

Having examined participant perception of learning,

computing knowledge and skills, the following

section explores participant attitudes.

5.2.1 Attitudes and Intentions

Participants shared the following views of the

workshop experience. One participant liked a project

orientated approach to learning where ‘problems

arise during the workshop (and through) discussion;

- trial and error the team overcame those problems’.

Another participant liked ‘having the opportunity to

create new content that isn’t directly related to my job

as a teacher / writer. I’ve learned that I am overly

analytical and tend to complicate topics. I’ve learned

that I am in a good place in terms of my content

knowledge and IT Skills’. However one participant

disliked the lack of direct instruction or teaching

which was perceived as necessary for encouraging

peer collaborating within teams; ‘I disliked how little

guidance / explanation was given on the actual

details. I know that is partly because as a teacher I’m

used to pushing through the syllabus with very little

time for self-learning or practicing! I expect

“teacher” to give out the formulas / examples’!

5.2.2 Replicating Coding Activities

Participants reported confidence in believing that

they could replicate workshop activities in their own

teaching. One participant intended using workshops

activities to increase student engagement on return to

the classroom ‘I will research potential lessons that

would translate well into the classroom environment

and engage children further. I will try to source

additional courses that will build on what I’ve

learned. I can give examples of the potential of the

raspberry pi in the classroom’. Another participant

intended using the learning model to deliver scratch

programming to their students: ‘I will try to integrate

Scratch into my daily teaching through project work

for my more visual learners. I will share Scratches

cross-curricula usefulness with my colleagues’.

Another participant intended using workshop ideas in

the context of delivering history lessons: ‘I will use

the ideas generated in our presentation in my

classroom and apply them across the history

curriculum. I will further delve into the materials

provided for my own development. I will share my

work with my colleagues’.

5.2.3 Social Constructivist Learning

Participants also expressed a range of views in

relation to using the Bridge21 model for teaching

computing. One participant stated that they would

like to use the model to ‘to introduce hardware

aspects and perhaps try to build some of the hardware

(e.g. the controls) as part of a science /engineering

project’ while another participant would use the

model ‘to help in my approach to problem solving in

my present role. It’s also given me new methods of

working with teams and groups’. However for some,

further preparation was required to bring 21

century

teaching and learning into the classroom ‘I won’t be

applying anything yet as I am not familiar enough

with scratch – a lot more time and engagement is

needed for use with the programme before I will be

doing it with my students. I would not be confident in

sharing any info with colleagues apart from telling

them that scratch is an animation program’. For one

participant, the workshop experience had introduced

them to ‘new peers. Learn new concepts to introduce

into practice. Formed friendships and support

mechanisms and felt challenged at time. Overall

enjoyed the workshop and how it created a safe

learning environment’. The workshop experience had

helped participants explore computing ideas for

teaching delivered in a safe learning environment.

6 CONCLUSIONS

This paper set out to examine two research questions.

In relation to research question 1, team work enabled

teachers to discuss ideas, ask questions and draw from

the expertise of the group to solve problems and work

through issues, independent of the facilitator. Team

working also created a safe learning environment

where teachers with varying technical expertise could

work together and produce a technical product.

Learning activities played a key role in helping

teachers apply computing skills, where they could

work at their own level, however facilitation was

CSEDU 2016 - 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

278

sometimes needed to guide teams through unfamiliar

problems.

In terms of research question 2, teacher attitudes

towards the use of the Bridge21 model for teaching

computing were reported as largely positive.

Teachers enjoyed the relaxed atmosphere, and the

opportunity to explore concepts at their own pace.

Furthermore, the workshop experience exposed

teachers to open questioning, where facilitators would

guide problem-solving without necessarily providing

answers. This in turn, encouraged teams to converge

to work together through problems in order to seek

out and then report back answers. Certainly, some

participants expected a more teacher-centred

approach to teaching and this in turn influenced the

reporting of some negative comments. Overall,

teachers reacted warmly to the Bridge21 approach

and reported time and time again the importance of

team work in supporting discovery oriented learning

6.1 Next Steps

This evaluation paper is the second in series, which

seeks to explore the influence of social constructivist

learning models on teaching Computer Science. This

paper explores the second level of the Kirkpatrick

framework to understand teacher perceptions of their

learning and attitudes to using a social constructivist

approach to teaching computing. The authors are in

the process of analysing Level 3 data to explore

implementation in the classroom, with follow up

interviews planned (Level 4).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work is funded by Google and the authors would

like to acknowledge that support and that of the post

primary school teachers whom generously gave their

consent to include written contributions which appear

in this paper.

REFERENCES

Baeten, M., Kyndt, E., Struyven, K. & Dochy, F. 2010.

Using Student-Centred Learning Environments To

Stimulate Deep Approaches To Learning: Factors

Encouraging Or Discouraging Their Effectiveness.

Educational Research Review, 5, 243-260.

Bates, R. 2004. A Critical Analysis Of Evaluation Practice:

The Kirkpatrick Model And The Principle Of

Beneficence. Evaluation And Program Planning, 27,

341-347.

Boud, D. 1988. Moving Towards Autonomy Developing

Student Autonomy In Learning. Second Edition Ed.:

Taylor & Francis.

Brinda, T., Puhlmann, H. & Schulte, C. 2009. Bridging Ict

And Cs: Educational Standards For Computer Science

In Lower Secondary Education. Acm Sigcse Bulletin,

41, 288-292.

Brown, N., Sentance, S., Crick, T. & Humphreys, S. 2014.

Restart: The Resurgence Of Computer Science In Uk

Schools. Acm Transactions In Computing Education,

14, 1-22.

Brown, T. & Wyatt, J. 2010. Design Thinking For Social

Innovation. Development Outreach, 12, 29-43.

Bryant, S., Romero, P. & Du Boulay, B. 2006. The

Collaborative Nature Of Pair Programming. 7th

International Conference On Extreme Programming

And Agile Processes In Software Engineering, 53-64.

Byrne, J. R., Fisher, L. & Tangney, B. 2015. Computer

Science Teacher Reactions Towards Raspberry Pi

Continuing Professional Development (Cpd)

Workshops Using The Bridge21 Model. Ieee 10th

International Conference On Computer Science &

Education 267-272.

Coldwell, M. & Simkins, T. 2011. Level Models Of

Continuing Professional Development Evaluation: A

Grounded Review And Critique. Professional

Development In Education, 37, 143-157.

Connell, A., Edwards, A., Hramiak, A., Rhoades, G. &

Stanley, N. 2015. Developing Your Capability To

Teach Computing. A Practical Guide To Teaching

Computing And Ict In The Secondary School. 2nd Ed.:

Routledge.

Ec. 2016. Coding 21st Century Skill [Online]. Brussels,

Belgium: European Union, 1995-2016 Available:

Https://Ec.Europa.Eu/Digital-Agenda/En/Coding-21st-

Century-Skill [Accessed 08/01/2016 2016].

English, L. & Sriraman, B. 2010. Problem Solving For The

21st Century. Theories Of Mathematics Education.

Springer.

Fisher, L., Byrne, J. R. & Tangney, B. 2015. Exploring

Teacher Reactions Towards A 21st Century Teaching

And Learning Approach To Continuing Professional

Development Programme In Computer Science. 7th

International Conference On Computer Supported

Education, 22-31.

Goetz, J. P. & Lecompte, M. D. 1981. Ethnographic

Research And The Problem Of Data Reduction.

Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 12, 51-70.

Guskey, T. R. 2000. Kirkpatrick's Evaluation Model

Evaluating Professional Development. Corwin Press,

Inc.

Harland, J. & Kinder, K. 1997. Teachers' Continuing

Professional Development: Framing A Model Of

Outcomes. British Journal Of In-Service Education, 23,

71-84.

Hazzan, O., Lapidot, T. & Ragonis, N. 2014. Active

Learning And Active-Learning-Based-Teaching-

Model. Guide To Teaching Computer Science: An

Activity-Based Approach. 2nd Ed.: Springer-Verlag

London Limited.

Teacher Experiences of Learning Computing using a 21st Century Model of Computer Science Continuing Professional Development

279

Holton, E. F. 1996. The Flawed FourLevel Evaluation

Model. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 7, 5-

21.

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

2015. Enacting Key Skills-Based Curricula In

Secondary Education: Lessons From A Technology-

Mediated, Group-Based Learning Initiative.

Technology, Pedagogy And Education, 24, 423-442.

Kaufman, R., Keller, J. & Watkins, R. 1996. What Works

And What Doesn't: Evaluation Beyond Kirkpatrick.

Performance And Instruction, 35, 8-12.

Kirkpatrick, D. L. 1994. The Four Levels: An Overview.

Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels.

Berrett-Koehler.

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.

Springer.

Lawlor, J., Marshall, K. & Tangney, B. 2015. Bridge21 –

Exploring The Potential To Foster Intrinsic Student

Motivation Through A Team-Based, Technology

Mediated Learning Model,. Technology, Pedagogy And

Education, 1-20.

Lecompte, M. D. & Goetz, J. P. 1982. Problems Of

Reliability And Validity In Ethnographic Research.

Review Of Educational Research, 52, 31-60.

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

Comparison And Analytical Induction To Identiy Items

Analyzing & Interpreting Ethnographic Data Altamira

Press.

Lewis, J., Ritchie, J., Mcnaughton Nicholls, C. & Ormston,

R. 2003. Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide For

Social Science Students And Researchers, Sage.

Naugle, K. A., Naugle, L. B. & Naugle, R. J. 2000.

Kirkpatrick's Evaluation Model As A Means Of

Evaluating Teacher Performance. Education, 121, 135-

144.

Ncca. 2014. Coding And Digital Media Literacy [Online].

Dublin: National Council For Curriculum And

Assessment. Available: Http://Www.Juniorcycle.Ie/Cu

rriculum/Short-Courses [Accessed 09/02/2016.

Smyth, E. & Banks, J. 2012. ‘There Was Never Really Any

Question Of Anything Else': Young People's Agency,

Institutional Habitus And The Transition To Higher

Education. British Journal Of Sociology Of Education,

33, 263-281.

Walser, N. 2008. Teaching 21st Century Skills. Harvard

Education Letter, 24, 1-3.

Zendler, A., Mcclung, O. W. & Klaudt, D. 2012. Content

And Process Concepts Relevant To Computer Science

Education: A Cross-Cultural Study. International

Journal Of Research Studies In Computing, 1, 27-47.

CSEDU 2016 - 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

280