Integrating Computer Science into Preservice Special Education Coursework: Exploring Faculty Perspectives and Practices

As technology’s impact and influence on daily life continues to grow, computer science (CS) has emerged as a crucial literacy needed by today’s students (Code.org et al., 2022; DeLyser et al., 2018). Stakeholders across the United States have continued to argue for the importance of CS education (CSed) in K-12 schools, and numerous local, state, and national initiatives have been passed to further support CSed (Code.org et al., 2022). Despite national momentum, there are significant and entrenched equity issues within the field, and students of color, women, urban and rural students, multilanguage learners, nonwhite, nonmale, queer students, and students with disabilities (the focus of this study) are often excluded from or not able to access high quality CS experiences and coursework (Code.org et al., 2021; Israel et al., 2015; Yadav et al., 2022).

There are myriad reasons for the existing landscape in CSed, including inequitable distribution of resources (Zhou et al., 2020), oppressive and exclusionary institutional structures and practices (Jones & Melo, 2020), stereotypes present within the field (Master et al., 2016), irrelevant curricula (Madkins et al., 2020), and a lack of highly qualified CS teachers (DeLyser et al., 2018; Yadav et al., 2021). The focus of this study is on the latter and will explore ways to better address the lack of highly qualified educators who can teach and integrate CS into their coursework, particularly in support of students with disabilities, who are ubiquitously marginalized in CSed spaces (Code.org et al., 2022).

When too few highly qualified teachers are available to teach or integrate CS into the classroom, equity issues emerge and remain entrenched (i.e., lack of access, participation, and exposure; DeLyser et al., 2018; Yadav et al., 2021). These issues are of serious concern within CSed, particularly given the field’s history of being exclusionary and inaccessible (e.g., see Margolis, 2017). By addressing the lack of highly qualified teachers who are able to teach and integrate CSed, specifically in support of students with disabilities, educators can begin to address some of these longstanding equity issues within the field.

Computer Science in Preservice Teacher Pathways

As demand for K-12 CSed increases, preservice teachers need preparation in basic CS and CSed knowledge and skills for teaching or integrating CS into their future classrooms (DeLyser et al., 2018; Yadav et al., 2021). For example, by 2025 the Los Angeles Unified School District (the second largest school district in the US) has committed to providing all pre-K to fifth-grade students with 20 hours of computer science education (Los Angeles Unified School District, n.d.). Additionally, as the impact of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) expands, students and teachers, alike, must learn how GenAI tools function and impact daily life (e.g., see Klopfer et al., 2024).

Knowledge of the ways GenAI operates and impacts society is directly tied to foundational CS knowledge and skills. To this end, an increasing number of professional development (PD) opportunities exist for in-service teachers; however, teacher education programs and preservice teacher pathways do not often offer CSed coursework and content (DeLyser et al., 2018; Yadav et al., 2021). This lack of CSed in preservice pathways is often due to a lack of teacher education faculty members who can teach and integrate CSed at the higher education level (DeLyser et al.).

By preparing preservice teachers to teach and integrate CS during their teacher education program, a more sustainable and continuous pipeline of future CS educators can be developed. Additionally, CSed endorsement, authorization, and licensure programs are uncommon in teacher education programs (DeLyser et al., 2018). Therefore, building CSed knowledge and skills in other teacher education coursework (e.g., education technology courses and methods courses) is a current research-based recommendation for supporting the inclusion of CSed in preservice pathways (see also Yadav et al., 2021).

Computer Science in Special Education

Despite increased momentum around supporting and integrating CSed in K-12 settings, there are still significant gaps in the field’s understanding around ways to best support students with disabilities in CSed (Code.org et al., 2022). What is known is that students with disabilities (along with other marginalized groups) are underrepresented in foundational CS courses and experiences, compared to their overall population within schools. While emerging research exists on how to better support students with disabilities in CSed (e.g., Bouck et al., 2021; Israel et al., 2022), significant work is still needed to provide more universally equitable and accessible experiences.

Specific to preservice teacher pathways, there is a paucity of evidence on how to best prepare future special education teachers (or general education teachers who will work with students with disabilities) to teach and integrate CS (Bouck et al., 2021; Yadav et al., 2022). When CSed is integrated in preservice pathways, students with disabilities are not always addressed or included. While federal laws require equal opportunities for students with disabilities (e.g., the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA]), those laws suggest that each student with a disability must have an Individualized Education Program that contains information on how the student will “be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum” (IDEA, 2004, 1414 [d] [1] [A] [i] [II] [aa]).

Despite these federal laws in the U.S., students with disabilities are not often considered in CS and CSed experiences. As Bouck et al (2021) argued, one way to address this shortfall is through the incorporation of CSed experiences into special education preservice pathways. Through this integration, future teachers can be prepared with foundational CS knowledge and skills, as well as the pedagogical knowledge needed to bring this content in accessible ways to students with disabilities.

Research Purpose and Rationale

Teacher education programs often struggle to integrate CSed within their preservice pathways due to the lack of time and space in the curriculum, the absence of preservice CS accreditation requirements, and the lack of a qualified faculty to teach CS and CSed-related content. As a result, preservice teachers rarely enter the field with knowledge of how to teach or integrate CS in their classroom (DeLyser, 2018). Students with disabilities are particularly disenfranchised within CSed (Code.org et al., 2021), and additional training and support is needed for preservice teachers to be able to teach and integrate CSed in beneficial ways for students with disabilities.

By focusing on how special education faculty integrate CS and CSed knowledge and skills into their existing preservice teacher coursework, we hope to explore ways to better prepare high quality teachers who can bring CS to their future classrooms in support of students with disabilities. To this end, we asked the following research questions:

• How did special education faculty members integrate CS and CSed knowledge and skills into their existing coursework?
• What rationales do special education faculty members provide for integrating CS and CSed knowledge and skills into existing coursework? 

In other words, we sought to better understand what CS and CSed activities and content special education faculty members integrated and why they chose to do this work.

Methods

To answer these questions we conducted a descriptive, exploratory, single case study (Yin, 2017) with the unit of analysis being the integration of CSed into existing preservice coursework. Qualitative data were collected across participant interviews, course revision proposals, and CS integration artifacts. University institutional review board approval was received for this study. All participants provided consent and participation in this study was voluntary.

Context

Our study occurred in the College of Education (COE) at a large, southern California public university. At the time of the study, the COE had 1,393 students enrolled, of which 68% were first-generation students and 69% historically underserved students. The university is a Hispanic-Serving institution (HSI) and minority-serving institution (MSI), and the COE prepares preservice teachers who primarily choose to teach in the surrounding school districts of Compton Unified, Inglewood Unified, and Los Angeles Unified, the second largest school district in the United States. Schools in these districts serve students who are traditionally underrepresented and underserved in CS education.

All participants in this program were from the Special Education Department in the COE. The Special Education Department served undergraduate, postbaccalaureate, and graduate students. At the undergraduate level, students who are earning an elementary (multiple subject) licensure through the Liberal Studies program take relevant special education coursework. At the postbaccalaureate and graduate level, students take general and specialized coursework related to their specific licensure requirements. The special education program offered credentials across four programs: (a) Mild Moderate Support Needs; (b) Extensive Support Needs; (c) Early Childhood Special Education; and (d) a Bridge Certificate for Early Childhood Special Education.

Participants

Participants in this study were three special education faculty members within the COE. All three participants had previously attended a computer science professional development (CSPD; see Karlin, Liao et al., 2023) and had decided to follow-up on that CSPD by integrating CS knowledge and skills into their existing coursework. These three participants were purposefully selected for their decision to integrate CS to better understand their rationale and process for this integration work. Participant demographics are described in Table 1.

Table 1
Participant Demographics (all names are pseudonyms)

Across all three participants, none had prior experience teaching CS, and all three had limited to no experience engaging with CS as a field of study. All three participants collaborated on a graduate level research methods course series and two of the three faculty members also worked individually to integrate CS into courses they taught. Faculty integration design work was completed over 3 months during the summer. The three faculty members received $750 stipends for each course they completed CS integration work.

Data Sources

To ensure a more holistic understanding of faculty rationales and practices and to improve trustworthiness, we collected data across a variety of sources. The following three data sources were used in our analysis:

• Participant Interviews (see interview protocol in the appendix): All participants completed a 30- to 60-minute interview. Interviews were conducted online via the Zoom video application and transcribed for analysis.
• Course Revision Proposals: All participants completed course revision proposals detailing how they would revise their coursework to integrate CS and CSed knowledge and skills and provide rationale for the benefit to their students as well as alignment with the COE mission and vision.
• CS Integration Artifacts: All participants shared CS integration artifacts (e.g., syllabi and slide decks) from the work they completed to integrate CS and CSed knowledge and skills into their existing COE coursework.

Data Analysis

We used thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) across all three data sources to uncover emergent themes that aligned with the study’s research questions. To start, two researchers individually read through all interview transcripts, course revision proposals, and course integration artifacts. During this initial reading, researchers individually looked for patterns, trends, and emergent themes across the data, while taking notes and creating initial coding tables on how these themes aligned with the study’s research questions.

The researchers then met to compare these two individual coding tables and discuss where alignment, overlap, and misalignment between the two existed. In cases of disagreement, discussion was had until agreement was reached (as recommended in Saldaña, 2015). At the conclusion of this meeting, a final coding table was established, and the two researchers again went through all data individually, using the final coding table to code all data that related to the study’s research questions. After this round of analysis, the researchers met again to discuss and come to agreement on the major emergent themes. We used data triangulation with multiple data sources to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the case and improve trustworthiness of our findings (Merriam, 1988; Stake, 1995).

Limitations

As a single case study, this work has the potential for limited generalizability (Merriam, 1988). This study explored three faculty members’ experiences and practices at one university who integrated CS into special education existing coursework. Therefore, generalizing outside of this specific context is a potential imitation of this study. We attempted to mitigate this limitation through detailed, thorough, rich descriptive data in the hope that readers can find parallels and connections with their own specific contexts.

Additionally, examining the impact of the CS implementation on student learning and perspectives was outside the scope of this study. This limitation could be addressed in future research by further exploring how these types of CS integration activities affect student learning and dispositions toward CS and, later, how they applied lessons learned in their teaching practice once they have their own students and classrooms.   

Results

Across all research questions and themes, participants discussed integrating content related to both CS and CSed. In other words, they discussed CS-specific content that aligned with state CS standards, such as algorithms, hardware and software, the impact of CS on society, and so forth. They also discussed CSed-specific ideas, such as ways to teach CS and what pedagogical strategies were appropriate for supporting students with disabilities. Therefore, CS and CSed are discussed as separate constructs in this results section, depending on what ideas and topics participants were addressing.

Additionally, special education faculty members integrated CS and CSed into six preservice courses. We have provided an overview of these courses to inform the general context of integration (see Table 2). Course numbers have been removed to anonymize the courses.

Table 2
Preservice Courses Where CS and CSed Were Integrated by Participants

Finally, it is important to note how this CS and CSed integration work was situated within the larger context of the teacher education and special education program in the COE. Overall, it was optional for faculty members to integrate CS and CSed into their coursework. As noted in the methods, faculty members received a stipend for completing this work. However, to receive the stipend the integration of this work had to be aligned with the larger COE vision and mission.

At the time of this study, the COE vision and mission was equity and justice-centered and meant to meet the needs of the diverse student body served by the university. Additionally, all three faculty members noted equity and justice-centered rationales for engaging in this work, which aligned with their personal education philosophies but also with the larger COE vision and mission. This finding is explored in detail under the results for RQ2.

Research Question 1

To address RQ1, participant interviews, course proposals, and integration artifacts were used. Overall, three faculty participants integrated CS and CSed into six preservice special education courses (one undergraduate course, one postbaccalaureate course, and four masters-level courses). Two primary themes emerged: (a) integration of introductory CS and CSed knowledge and (b) integration of CS and CSed into preservice research projects.

Theme 1: Integration of Introductory CS and CSed Knowledge

Across all six courses where CS and CSed were integrated, faculty members created artifacts that covered introductory content, definitions, standards, pedagogical approaches, and knowledge for both CS and CSed. In other words, they addressed definitions, content, knowledge, and skills specific to CS, in general, while also addressing pedagogical approaches and classroom possibilities (CSed).

For CS, definitions of the field were provided across all courses, and overviews of the California CS standards were also addressed. This introductory content included resources for teaching CSed in PreK-12 settings for students with disabilities, like Scratch (https://scratch.mit.edu/). For example, for the Curriculum and Instruction in Early Childhood Special Education course, the instructor Connor created slides that provided an introduction to CSed, a rationale for incorporating CS in special education spaces, an overview of the CS standards, and an exploration of aligning CS and CSed with early childhood education (see Figure 1). This “Why Teach CS” rationale also connected to the equity rationales for engaging in CS work.

Figure 1
Portion of an Integration Artifact Example for the Curriculum and Instruction in Early Childhood Special Education Course

Connor also created a spreadsheet crosswalk detailing how the elementary-level California computer science standards aligned with existing Pre-K standards and frameworks with a particular eye toward alignment with special education topics and standards (see Figure 2). In his interview, he estimated it took 4 hours to build the crosswalk, the majority of which he spent familiarizing himself with the K-2 CS standards and exploring how those skills might be practiced and applied within typical California early childhood curricula.

Figure 2
Example Portion of a Crosswalk Showing Alignment Between Elementary California Computer Science Standards and Early Childhood Education Standards

For Kyle’s course, Dual Language and Inclusionary Practices, he discussed the specific CS knowledge and skills he would address in his proposal submission. In the submission, he noted the specific CS content area standards to be addressed as well as their connection to his existing curriculum:

This proposed integration will allow the instructor of the course to assess current pre-service dual language teachers’ needs in both English and Spanish, so that they may better serve their bilingual students who present with complex communication needs (CCNs). This course revision adds a research component in order to evaluate our university teacher preparation program and the ability to prepare future dual language teachers to meet the unique communication needs of students who use Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) devices.  The research project will involve a pre-test survey, AAC presentation, post-test survey along with a follow-up interview/survey six weeks post presentation. An additional component will involve a family and community assessment need for students to be able to integrate the use of both languages, Spanish and English, when using the AAC device. This proposal is aligned with the following computer science standard:
Standard Identifier: 3-5.IC.22. Propose ways to improve the accessibility and usability of technology products for the diverse needs and wants of users. The development and modification of computing technology is driven by people’s needs and wants and can affect groups differently. Students anticipate the needs and wants of diverse end users and propose ways to improve access and usability of technology, with consideration of potential perspectives of users with different backgrounds, ability levels, points of view, and disabilities.
One significant factor as related to this topic is the need to allow future educators to develop a family and community plan for their students who use an AAC device. Families are often left out of the understanding in how to access the AAC device for lack of familiarity or when information is not provided in the home language of Spanish. This also connects with Standard Identifier: 9-12.IC.27: Use collaboration tools and methods to increase connectivity with people of different cultures and careers.

As exemplified with Connor and Kyle’s work, the same themes were seen across all three participants’ interviews, proposals, and integration artifacts. In short, there was a universal theme of aligning newly integrated content with existing special education topics and standards. Additionally, all faculty members used the California CS standards as a guide to make connections to their existing curriculum. This finding is explored further in RQ2, Theme 2, where faculty members noted that they were, at times, already meeting CS standards in some capacity within their courses, but they (and their preservice teachers) did not always have the language or awareness.

Theme 2: Integration of CS and CSed Into Preservice Research Projects

All three special education faculty members worked collaboratively to develop course revision proposals and integration artifacts for a masters-level three-course thesis series. Within this three-course master’s program sequence, students design and conduct research projects for their master’s thesis in special education. Multiple topic areas are explored throughout the course as possible research avenues (e.g., math instruction for students with intellectual disabilities, reading comprehension interventions for students with learning disabilities, etc.); however, there were no previous sessions on incorporating CS and CSed research into a master’s thesis.

As discussed in the three Course Revision Proposal documents that the faculty team submitted, additional specifics on this change were shared:

This project will incorporate the California K-12 Computer Science Standards (CK-12 CSS). Interested students will design their MA candidate research projects on the standards appropriate to the grade level they teach. For example, a master’s candidate who teaches third grade may decide to investigate the use of peer-based instruction to teach students with autism how to meet standard 3-5.DA.9 while a master’s candidate who teaches eleventh grade may decide to investigate the use of graphic organizers to teach students with learning disabilities how to meet standard 9-12.DA.10. Students’ work will meet our course standards related to engaging in research, scholarly or creative activity to make meaningful contributions to the field at a graduate level and demonstrate an in-depth, advanced knowledge base that reflects the current theories and best practice(s).

In addition to alignment with the CS standards, the faculty members also incorporated two new readings into the class. (i.e., Israel et al., 2015; Taylor, 2018). These readings provided examples of what CS integration in K-12 spaces could look like when used in support of students with disabilities. As part of the new curriculum, students read and discussed these works while exploring ideas for integration in their own future classrooms.

Overall, though the graduate students ultimately decide what research projects they will focus on, through the collaborative efforts of these three faculty participants, exploring CS and CSed lines of research within the special education master’s thesis is now possible (see Figure 3 and Figure 4).

Figure 3
Portion of an Integration Artifact Example for the Special Education Master’s Thesis Course Series

Figure 4
A Summary of the Faculty-Created Rationale for Conducted Research on CS Integration in K-12 Special Education

Research Question 2

To address RQ2, participant interviews, course proposals, and integration artifacts were used. Two primary themes emerged: (a) importance of equitable and inclusive CS and CSed and (b) Preservice teachers may already be integrating CSed but may not have the language.

Theme 1: Importance of Equitable and Inclusive CS and CSed

Across all three faculty course proposals and interviews, the importance of equitable, accessible CSed was discussed as a universal rationale for engaging in this integration work. For example, in their joint proposal, all three faculty participants mentioned that “research on the teaching of CS concepts to preK-12 students with disabilities is limited” and “teaching CS to students with disabilities is an afterthought.”

In one of the team’s collaborative proposals, they expanded on this idea by drawing on the dearth of research on supporting special education students in CS as primary rationale for engaging in this work. They wrote the following in their proposal:

The team is undertaking this work because research on the teaching of CS concepts to PK-12 students with disabilities is limited. For example, a March 2021 search in ERIC for the keywords “computer science” with no year restrictions returned 9,549 results published in scholarly journals. A more specific search for computer science AND intellectual disabilities returned 21 publications in scholarly journals while a search for computer science AND autism returned 23. Of the latter two searches, less than five results investigated the causal use of an instructional or behavioral intervention strategy to teach CS concepts. If faculty are to “re-imagine equitable, responsive, and just learning experiences for all learners, especially those from minoritized groups within our college and in our local schools”, then we must also investigate whether current practices defined as evidence-based can be used to effectively teach CS concepts to PK-12 students with disabilities.

During his interview, Kyle added to these ideas and described how the integration of CSed can “serve more culturally and linguistically diverse students in urban settings” and “increase access and usability of technology uses considering different backgrounds, ability levels, points of view, and disabilities.” Here, Kyle provided an even more expansive view of the importance of equity in CS, noting that these issues extend beyond students with disabilities only and also impact culturally and linguistically diverse students, as well as students in urban areas.

Kristie described in her interview how CSed can help special education students connect, collaborate, and develop important skills: “We may be able to get [special education students] to engage with others by doing [CS], or they may find that they need others and it causes them to make a connection socially that they haven’t made before.” In other words, we can use CS in the classroom to create more equitable learning experiences and environments for students with special needs.

As noted under RQ1, the faculty members also discussed the topic of “Why Teach CS” and provided a variety of rationales for students to consider integrating CS in their future classrooms. A portion of that rationale was also equity related (see Figure 5). The equity-related reasons had to do with ways CS could provide students with disabilities increased access to general education curricula and the importance of holding high expectations and standards for students with disabilities.

Figure 5 also references ways CS concepts impact the lives of students with disabilities beyond the classroom. Many individuals with disabilities frequently utilize technologies such as smartphones and social media both for educational and personal reasons. This means teachers also need to instruct students with disabilities on basic cybersecurity and digital citizenship principles, such as how to secure their personal devices and their personal information online. Finally, faculty members shared how integrating CS into special education coursework can increase digital and technological access and use, in general, which provides increased opportunities across a variety of other fields, as well.

Figure 5
Faculty-Created Rationale For “Why Teach CS?” Including Several Equity-Related Rationales

Overall, equity was a central rationale for faculty members wanting to engage in this work. While those equity rationales were framed from different perspectives, the core idea was that CS and CSed integration can also serve as a driver for equity-minded work.

Theme 2: Preservice Teachers May Already Be Integrating CSed but May Not Have the Language

Finally, a universal theme across data from all three faculty participants was that preservice teachers were, at times, already doing work that connected to the CS standards, they just did not have the knowledge or language to make that connection. Faculty members repeatedly noted that the elementary California CS standards aligned with existing special education standards and framework and that finding points of integration was possible. For example, when interviewed Kyle noted,

Just seeing a lot of the standards and the grade level expectations were like, “Oh, well, this totally makes sense.” And it’s like, “Oh, well, you’re doing those things, you just don’t realize…what it’s called. Just basic computer skills and coding.

Connor also shared similar thoughts during his interview:

I try to get the students thinking about how “some of this [CS content] I may already teach.”… For example, how do you take data, and organize that data? Can you get students to present on it? … The main point was to present it in a way such that this is something they may already be doing in the classroom, they just don’t know about it, and then building upon that: “Hey, you already do this? Let’s expand on it a little bit.”… I think the challenge here is to not present [CS] as a topic where they immediately tune out because they imagine, “Well, I don’t know computer programming. I can’t teach computer science.” That’s the challenge, to not get them into that mindset.

Finally, Kristie summarized this point by saying that connections to CS are often there for preservice teachers, but they often do not get enough exposure. This could be because special education credential students are not required to take a course that focuses solely on technology use in schools in the program explored for this study. When they do get exposure, they tend to see its applicability and relevance: “I don’t think [our preservice teachers] have been exposed to CS and when they are, they’re like, ‘Crap, I hadn’t thought about this!’ I think there’s just not enough exposure [to CS].”

Overall, this idea of already doing CS and CSed work but not realizing it was reported by all three faculty members and discussed as a beneficial entry point for engaging special education students with computer science activities. This is not to say preservice teachers were already engaging in every CS activity and idea prior to the integration of new activities. Rather, there were already points of alignment within courses where preservice teachers were engaging in CS and CS-adjacent work, making it easier for faculty to bring CS activities into the classroom as they aligned with work already being done.

Discussion and Implications

Overall, our results and findings from this study illuminate several important implications for continuing research and practice around the integration of CS and CSed into preservice pathways, particularly in special education contexts.

Importance of Equity-Based Rationales for CS Integration

Across all three faculty participants, a strong emphasis was placed on equity and inclusion as their rationale for engaging in this work. This finding aligns with previous work (Karlin, Liao et al., 2023), showing that equity and inclusion arguments can serve as a driver for engaging faculty members in CS integration work. While state and national level arguments for increasing CS participation often approach this conversation from a workforce and industry perspective (e.g., Code.org et al., 2022; The White House, 2016), those arguments may not resonate or be relevant with faculty when attempting to increase buy-in for CS integration in preservice pathways.

While this study (and our participants) was primarily focused on equity and inclusion from a special education perspective, there are deeply entrenched equity issues in CS for numerous historically marginalized groups (i.e., students of color, multilingual students, queer students, rural students, urban students, low SES students, and others; Code.org et al., 2021; Jones & Melo, 2020). For our participants, the equity and inclusion rationale was rooted in supporting students with special needs; however, to expand faculty buy-in across more general teacher education contexts, exploring these widespread, deep-seated equity issues may be beneficial in for supporting initial buy-in (e.g., Karlin, Liao et al., 2023). Future work is needed to continue to explore both general and specific faculty rationales for integrating CS and CSed into existing preservice coursework.

Importance of Community and Collaboration

The three faculty participants worked collaboratively on course revisions for a three-course master’s-level research sequence in special education. This collaborative approach was reported as being beneficial by the faculty members and had “Connor as more the lead [on that work] because he is a very techie science person,” as reported by Kristie. Research has suggested that CS and CSed can often be isolating fields, with few teacher preparation programs in the U.S. focused on teaching and integrating CS in preservice pathways (DeLyser et al., 2018). By building community and collaborative opportunities around CS and CSed integration, teacher educators may be better able to support integration work into preservice teacher pathways.

Similar ideas were discussed by Margulieux et al. (2022) in their research on integrating computing into preservice language, math, and science coursework. As the authors described, “The gold standard for computing integration instruction would be that teachers are able to adapt or create computing integration activities for the needs of their students and classroom” (p. 12).

While faculty members in our study were able to do this, it was only through significant collaboration with each other and continued support from us. In other words, this work was not done in isolation. As Margulieux et al. (2022) noted, this work cannot be done without “ongoing professional development, classroom experience, and online learning communities” (p. 12). The importance of professional development, experience, and communities of support cannot be overstated, particularly when faculty members are new to CS and Csed, as were our participants. Additionally, it is important to note that the integration of CS and CSed seen in this study was largely introductory definitions and classroom activities. With further support, professional development, and communities of practice, deeper, more advanced activities could potentially be integrated in preservice coursework. Further research could explore what this looks like with support from long-term PD and building communities of practice.

Importance of Finding Existing, Personalized CS Connections

All three faculty participants reported that they were able to integrate CS and CSed into preservice coursework because it connected with concepts and ideas they were already addressing. Through their existing assistive technology topics and masters-level research coursework, the faculty members found clear points of beneficial integration for CS and CSed. By drawing on the state CS standards and these existing topics, they were able to find organic ways to bring CS and CSed into their classrooms and coursework.

Other faculty members may find similar points of connections between their curricula and CS standards or topics. For example, if preservice teachers in a science or STEM (science, technology, mathematics, and engineering) methods course are learning about ways to support the development of critical-thinking and problem-solving skills or learning about engineering design challenges, faculty members could integrate game design activities similar to Akcaoglu and Kale (2016). In their study, preservice teachers learned foundational CS and CSed concepts by engaging in game design activities and then designing and reflecting on lesson plans they could implement.

Another example comes from Margulieux et al. (2023), where the research team found and categorized different levels of programming concepts used in computing integration activities from across K-12 grade levels and subject areas. This type of framework could be highly beneficial for finding relevant, appropriate, and personalized CS integration ideas and possibilities for faculty members who are needing support on where and how to integrate CS. Faculty (and PD providers) could use this framework as a starting point when supporting the integration of CS into existing preservice coursework.

Finally, examples of successful CS integration into special education settings at the K-12 level could also be applied within preservice contexts to provide relevant cases for preservice teachers to explore.  For example, Bouck and Yadav (2020) examined how computational thinking and computer science could be used within mathematics contexts to support elementary and middle school students with disabilities. Their study provides a variety of different vignettes and cases that preservice teachers could attempt in their own field experiences or with their peers in a mathematics methods course. These types of successful examples offer a variety of possibilities and can help guide faculty members as they begin to integrate CS into preservice pathways, even if they have limited CS experience or support within their program. 

Potential for Educational Robotics and Advanced CS Topics

None of the participants in this study discussed or integrated robotics into their preservice special education coursework, instead relying on existing curricular resources like Scratch, Hour of Code, and unplugged computing activities (see Figure 6). However, there is emerging work around robotics in special education at the K-12 level (e.g., Israel et al., 2018; Pivetti et al., 2020; Taylor et al., 2017), suggesting that educational robotics can be another pathway for students with disabilities to engage in foundational CS activities. As new educational robotics and tools emerge, continued work is needed at the higher education level to examine and iterate on best practices for the integration of educational robotics within preservice teacher coursework (e.g., Schina et al., 2021).

Figure 6
Example CS Integration Activities and Resources Provided by Special Education Faculty for Preservice Teachers

For example, Taylor et al. (2017) engaged students with Down Syndrome in computer science learning through the use of educational robotics. Through the intervention examined in their research work, all three student participants with Down Syndrome were successful in learning introductory programming tasks with their robots. Therefore, while this approach was not explicitly integrated or addressed by participants in this study, there is a possibility that educational robotics could serve as a beneficial tool for supporting computer science integration in preservice special education pathways. More work is needed to better understand what pedagogical approaches, types of robotics, and specific instructional activities would best prepare preservice teachers to use and integrate robotics in their future classrooms. 

Additionally, the integration activities faculty created during this work were typically considered introductory CS activities. For example, faculty members helped preservice teachers define CS, learn about tools like Scratch and Hour of Code, and become familiar with basic introductory terminology like algorithms and programming. However, more research is needed to better determine what supports and scaffolding faculty members might need to introduce advanced CS concepts into their coursework (potentially through the use of educational robotics).

For example, Margulieux et al. (2022) described how even with a block-based coding language (like Scratch) preservice teachers could address advanced concepts and program visualizations even without having to learn complex programming syntax. Many educational robotics also rely on similar block-based coding languages. More research is needed to better understand the types of support and scaffolding necessary to help bring these types of advanced concepts and examples into preservice teacher education, particularly when faculty members have limited or no CS experience.

Additionally, more research is needed on preservice teacher experiences when faculty members bring these types of activities into the classroom. Measuring changes in preservice teacher CS perceptions and knowledge would be beneficial for understanding the impact these types of integration activities have in preservice teacher education coursework.

Potential for Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) Topics

Similar to educational robotics and advanced CS topics, none of the faculty participants addressed GenAI topics in their materials or interviews. However, emerging research has suggested that understanding GenAI is becoming fundamentally important for students and teachers (e.g., Klopfer et al., 2024; Sattelmaier & Pawlowski, 2023). In general, GenAI is often defined as a technology tool that uses learning models to generate humanlike content (e.g., video, images, and text) when prompted by a human (Lim et al., 2023). Recent examples include OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Microsoft’s Copilot GenAI tools.

In the short time since the emergence of GenAI tools, they have already had a significant impact on the field of education (as well as numerous other fields; Lim et al., 2023; Mintz et al., 2023). While many have discussed the benefits of these new technology tools, others have also warned of the risks posed by GenAI, such as bias in AI models and data privacy concerns (e.g., Mintz et al.). As such, calls have increased for the integration of AI education and awareness in K-12 spaces (Klopfer et al., 2024).

Within special education, as with many other fields, research around GenAI is nascent. For example, Oh-Young and Karlin (2024) explored how GenAI tools may benefit and support teachers in the early childhood special education classroom. The authors provided example prompts and ways to engage with tools like ChatGPT to provide support on common classroom tasks. Others have suggested that GenAI tools could be used to better personalize learning opportunities within STEM classrooms, thereby providing increased accessibility to students with special needs (Mallory, 2024).

Topics like these could be integrated into special education preservice coursework as well, to ensure new teachers are equipped with basic GenAI literacy as they enter their classrooms. However, significant work is still needed to understand the potential benefits and significant risks that GenAI may pose in the special education classroom.

Implications

Implications for policy center around the actions COE administration can take to implement policy that supports, encourages, and solidifies a place for computer science education within coursework where appropriate. Currently, K-12 schools in 30 states offer CS to students in some form (Weissman et al., 2023). Eight of these 30 states have also passed policies that require students to complete a CS course to earn their high school diploma (Arkansas, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Tennessee). Teacher education programs must keep up with these state level trends and requirements so that incoming preservice teachers are prepared and trained for the expectations of the classroom. By passing policies and support measures at the college level, administrators can help lead the integration of CS (including GenAI) into teacher education coursework. Research could also be conducted on this work to explore the types of administrative policies and rollouts that are effective in supporting CS integration and beneficial for building buy-in.

Implications for practice in teacher education include the integration of CS across pathways and departments. This research focused on integration in special education pathways, and other scholars have explored what CS integration looks like in methods coursework or education technology coursework (e.g., Margulieux et al., 2022). By continuing to expand where CS integration can occur, researchers open new possibilities for practice and help demonstrate that CS integration can happen in a wide variety of diverse teacher education contexts.

Additionally, limited work has been conducted exploring CS integration in preservice teacher education programs that involves field experiences and partnerships with in-service teachers.

For example, Karlin, Stephany et al., (2023) brought 28 preservice teachers from an elementary science, technology, engineering, arts, and math (STEAM) methods course to colead a hands-on robotics and coding field experience for local fourth-grade students and supported by the fourth-grade teachers. These types of holistic activities involving preservice teachers, in-service teachers, and local students can be beneficial learning and PD experiences for all involved. Given the limited amount of existing research on CS integration in teacher education, research should also be conducted across these various integration possibilities and contexts.

Conclusion

Integrating CS and CSed knowledge, skills, and approaches into existing preservice coursework is a promising strategy to build CS teacher capacity and address longstanding equity issues within the field. Particularly when this work is done in special education departments, future special education teachers can be ensured foundational CS experiences they can take to their classrooms in support of students with disabilities.

In our study, we found that engaging faculty in CS integration work through equity-focused rationales was beneficial, as was providing space and opportunity for collaboration. Faculty members were able to find points of alignment between their existing coursework and CS standards, which made integration work more feasible. Far too often, students with disabilities are ignored or left out of broadening participation efforts within CS. However, their inclusion in these movements is both crucial and essential if educators are to create more equitable systems of engagement within computer science.

References

Akcaoglu, M., & Kale, U. (2016). Teaching to teach (with) game design: Game design and learning workshops for preservice teachers. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 16(1), 60-81. https://www-learntechlib-org.proxyiub.uits.iu.edu/p/151017/

Bouck, E. C., Sands, P., Long, H., & Yadav, A. (2021). Preparing special education preservice teachers to teach computational thinking and computer science in mathematics. Teacher Education and Special Education, 44(3), 221-238. doi: 10.1177/0888406421992376

Bouck, E. C., & Yadav, A. (2022). Providing access and opportunity for computational thinking and computer science to support mathematics for students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 37(1), 151-160. doi: 10.1177/0162643420978564

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Code.org, CSTA, & ECEP Alliance. (2021). 2021 State of computer science education: Accelerating action through advocacy. https://code.org/assets/advocacy/stateofcs/2021_state_of_cs.pdf

Code.org, CSTA, & ECEP Alliance. (2022). 2022 State of computer science education: Understanding our national imperative. https://code.org/assets/advocacy/stateofcs/2022_state_of_cs.pdf

DeLyser, L., Goode, J., Guzdial, M., Kafai, Y., & Yadav, A. (2018). Priming the computer science teacher pump: Integrating computer science education into schools of education. CSforAll.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2024)

Israel, M., Kester, B., Williams, J. J., & Ray, M. J. (2022). Equity and inclusion through UDL in K-6 computer science education: Perspectives of teachers and instructional coaches. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 22(3). https://doi.org/10.1145/3513138

Israel, M., Wherfel, Q. M., Pearson, J., Shehab, S., & Tapia, T. (2015). Empowering K–12 students with disabilities to learn computational thinking and computer programming. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 48(1), 45-53. doi: 10.1177/0040059915594790

Israel, M., Ray, M. J., Maa, W. C., Jeong, G. K., eun Lee, C., Lash, T., & Do, V. (2018). School-embedded and district-wide instructional coaching in K-8 computer science: Implications for including students with disabilities. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 26(3), 471-501. https://www-learntechlib-org.proxyiub.uits.iu.edu/p/181938/

Jones, S. T., & Melo, N. (2020). ‘Anti-blackness is no glitch’ the need for critical conversations within computer science education. XRDS: Crossroads, 27(2), 42-46. doi: 10.1145/3433134

Karlin, M., Liao, Y. C., & Mehta, S. (2023). Exploring computer science understanding and rationales in preservice teacher pathways through faculty professional development. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 56(5). 515-529. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2023.2174623

Karlin, M., Stephany, C., & Reed, M. (2023). Coding to Connect: Centering joy and community in elementary computer science education. Dialogue/En Diálogo, 1(1), 71-84. doi: 10.46787/dialogue.v1i1.3327

Klopfer, E., Reich, J., Abelson, H., & Breazeal, C. (2024). Generative AI and K-12 education: An MIT perspective. doi: 10.21428/e4baedd9.81164b06

Lim, W. M., Gunasekara, A., Pallant, J. L., Pallant, J. I., & Pechenkina, E. (2023). Generative AI and the future of education: Ragnarök or reformation? A paradoxical perspective from management educators. The International Journal of Management Education, 21(2), 100790. doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100790

Los Angeles Unified School District. (n.d.). Instructional technology initiative: Computer science education. https://www.lausd.org/page/10023

​​Madkins, T. C., Howard, N. R., & Freed, N. (2020). Engaging equity pedagogies in computer science learning environments. Journal of Computer Science Integration, 3(2). doi: 10.26716/jcsi.2020.03.2.1

Mallory, J. (2024). Empowering special needs STEM students through unique generative AI Tools: A path to inclusive learning. In J. Cohen & G. Solano (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 2156-2161). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.

Margulieux, L. E., Enderle, P., Junor Clarke, P., King, N., Sullivan, C., Zoss, M., & Many, J. (2022). Integrating computing into preservice teacher preparation programs across the core: language, mathematics, and science. Journal of Computer Science Integration, 5(1). doi: 10.26716/jcsi.2022.11.15.35

Margulieux, L., Parker, M. C., Uzun, G. C., & Cohen, J. D. (2023). Levels of programming concepts used in computing integration activities across disciplines. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 31(2), 167-202. https://www-learntechlib-org.proxyiub.uits.iu.edu/primary/p/221815/

Master, A., Cheryan, S., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2016). Computing whether she belongs: Stereotypes undermine girls’ interest and sense of belonging in computer science. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(3), 424. doi: 10.1037%2Fedu0000061

Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. Jossey-Bass.

Mintz, J., Holmes, W., Liu, L., & Perez-Ortiz, M. (2023). Artificial intelligence and K-12 education: Possibilities, pedagogies and risks. Computers in the Schools, 40(4), 325-333. doi: 10.1080/07380569.2023.2279870

Oh-Young, C., & Karlin, M. (2024). Artificial intelligence… In the early childhood special education classroom!!?. TEACHING Exceptional Children.  doi: 10.1177/00400599241231237

Pivetti, M., Di Battista, S., Agatolio, F., Simaku, B., Moro, M., & Menegatti, E. (2020). Educational Robotics for children with neurodevelopmental disorders: A systematic review. Heliyon, 6(10). doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05160

Saldaña, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.

Sattelmaier, L., & Pawlowski, J. M. (2023, December). Towards a generative artificial intelligence competence framework for schools. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Enterprise and Industrial Systems (Vol. 270, p. 291). Springer Nature. doi: 10.2991/978-94-6463-340-5_26

Schina, D., Esteve-González, V., & Usart, M. (2021). An overview of teacher training programs in educational robotics: characteristics, best practices and recommendations. Education and Information Technologies, 26(3), 2831-2852. doi: 10.1007/s10639-020-10377-z

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage.

Taylor, M. S., Vasquez, E., & Donehower, C. (2017). Computer programming with early elementary students with Down syndrome. Journal of Special Education Technology, 32(3), 149-159. doi: 10.1177/0162643417704439

Taylor, M. S. (2018). Computer programming with Pre-K through first-grade students with intellectual disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 52(2), 78-88. doi: 10.1177/0022466918761120

Weissman, H., Glennon, M., Twarek, B., Dunton, S., & Childs, J. (2023). 2023 State of computer science education. 2023_state_of_cs.pdf (code.org)

The White House. (2016). Computer Science for all. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2016/01/30/computer-science-all

Yadav, A., DeLyser, L. A., Kafai, Y., Guzdial, M., & Goode, J. (2021). Building and expanding the capacity of schools of education to prepare and support teachers to teach computer science. In C, Mouza, A. Yadav, & A. Ottenbreit-Leftwich (Eds.), Preparing pre-service teachers to teach computer Science: Models, practices, and policies (pp. 191-203). Information Age Publishing.

Yadav, A., Israel, M., Bouck, E., Cobo, A., & Samuels, J. (2022, February). Achieving CSforAll: Preparing special education pre-service teachers to bring computing to students with disabilities. In Proceedings of the 53rd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education-Volume 1 (pp. 196-201). doi: 10.1145/3478431.3499333

Yin, R. K. (2017). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. (6th ed.). Sage.

Zhou, N., Cao, Y., Jacob, S., & Richardson, D. (2020). Teacher perceptions of equity in high school computer science classrooms. ACM Transactions on Computing Education, 20(3), 1-27. doi: 10.1145/3410633

Appendix
Interview Protocol

Q1. What is your name and current role?

Q2. How long have you been a faculty member?

Q3. What courses do you typically teach?

Q4. Can you describe your typical students?  Who are they, why are they enrolled in your course/program, etc?

Q5. If you feel comfortable with it, could you share your race/ethnicity and gender?

Q6. What made you interested in attending our initial CS professional development during the Spring of 2022?

Q7. Did you have any prior experience with CS before that professional development event?  If so, what?

Q8. What made you interested in submitting a curriculum revision proposal to integrate CS into your existing coursework?

Q9. What changes to your curriculum did you make in order to integrate CS?

Q10. How did you decide to make those specific changes and what goals / objectives were you hoping to achieve with those changes?

Q11. Have you begun the integration of CS into your existing coursework?  If so, how has it gone so far?  If not, why not?

Q12. Have you considered integrating CS into other coursework you teach?  Why or why not?

Q13. Specific to preservice teachers in special education – do you see any benefits or value to integrating CS into preservice coursework? If so, what are they?

Q14. Specific to preservice teachers in special education – do you see any barriers to integrating CS into preservice coursework? If so, what are they?

Q15. Do you see any benefits or value to integrating CS into preservice coursework in general?  If so, what are they?

Q16. Do you see any barriers to integrating CS into preservice coursework in general? If so, what are they?

Q17. Any other thoughts around CS integration into preservice coursework you’d like to share?